Lack of 'Reformed' theology among the Early Church Fathers?

[Jon 316]

Having spent some time reading through the writings of the Fathers, I cannot help but notice the lack of teaching that coincides with a lot of 'reformed' doctrines.

e.g

• Emphasis on free will
  
• Clear emphasis that believers can lose their salvation
  
• Emphasis on salavation being by both faith and works

Now I appreciate that

The Fathers works are not scripture

I also appreciate that it is generally agreed that they 'lived their theology' rather than spending time debating precision of words etc.

But I also appreciate that they are not heretics, yet many of their views would be considered heretical by reformed people especially when these views are rearticulated today. Indeed many of their writings seem more arminian in nature.

My question is, from the perspective of a historian- is this not problematic for protestants?

 

[SolaSaint]

John,

That is an interesting question. Can you be a little more specific, which early church fathers held to these beliefs and where are they recorded? Thanks and I look forward to your reply for I really do think this is a very important topic. God bless.

 

[Christusregnat]

John, you ought to read at least Clement of Rome, in which are clearly exemplified:

Justification by faith alone
Predestination/election
Covenant theology (particularly his overwhelming use of the Older Testament)
Regulative Principle of Worship
The Divine Authorship of Scripture (it is not man's word)


Here are my notes from the study of Clement:

Clement of Rome:
1.Source: The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1 (cited as ANF, Vol. 1) (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, Fourth Printing 1994) pp. 5 – 21.
2.References: (a) The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, Ed. Jerald C. Brauer (The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1971) “Clement of Rome” pp. 213 – 214.
(b) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Ed. F.L. Cross (Oxford University Press, London, 1958) pp. 296 – 297.
(c) Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2 (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 1996) pp. 636 – 648.
(d) William Cunningham, Historical Theology, Vol. 1 (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1994) pp. 97 – 104.
3.Life of Clement: Presbyter-bishop at Rome along with or after Linus and Anacletus (A.D. 92 – 101); lived roughly A.D. 30 – 100. May be the same Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3, and also possibly with Paul at Philippi around A.D. 57. Schaff assigns Clement a place with Ignatius and Polycarp second to the Apostles and the Didache. Clement a disciple of Peter and Paul, and well instructed in the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles. Epistle quoted by Church Fathers, but disappeared until early 17th Century when a copy of it was found in a copy of the Greek Scriptures (it was read in some Churches until the early 4th Century).

Epistle of Clement to the Church at Corinth

Epistle of his name written by the session of the Church at Rome (Eusebius iii, 15, and Origen's Commentary in John i, 29) to advise the Corinthians on matters they had consulted the Church at Rome about. Covers:

Commendation of the Corinthians before their recent disorder and sedition against some of their presbyters

Sad state of Corinthians due to envy and disorder

Historical examples of such disorder: Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, etc.

Call to repentance

Saints are examples of repentance, holiness, faith and hospitality

Christ and His saints examples of humility as well

Imitate these, and the created order which peacefully exists in daily alterations

Obey God, not the authors of sedition

Sin brings misery, but Christ brings resurrection

Cease from sin, because: God sees all, we are God's elect, we are justified by works, not by words

We receive God's blessings and justification, however, by faith alone

Justification by faith alone doesn't lead to sloth

God promises great rewards to obedience; therefore, let us obey

One body of Christ; each member gives advantage to others, and therefore give thanks for differing gifts

In one body, we must follow God's order, as exemplified in God's order in the priesthood of the OT

In the same way, God sent Christ, Christ sent Apostles, Apostles sent presbyters and deacons

Only the wicked have ever persecuted the righteous

This strife was worse than that in Paul's day; therefore, return to glorious and conquering love

Likewise, thankfully receive chastening

Let the seditious submit, and peace be restored by calling on God


Talking points:

1.Clement, as an apostolic father, was well trained in the scriptures, particularly in the Old Testament Scriptures There are 165 quotations of Scripture in a little over 16 pages, 62.4% of those are from the Old Testament. Clement favored the Psalms (16.4% of the 165 quotations), Genesis (10.3%) and Hebrews (7.9%).
2.Clement was not a pope doctrinally or practically:
1.He only advised as part of the Roman Session when consulted:
“We feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us.” ANF, Vol. 1, p. 5.
2.He believed in justification by faith alone:
“All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” ANF, Vol. 1, p. 13.
3.He equated the office of bishop with that of presbyter:
“For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them.” ANF, Vol. 1, p. 17 (cf. p.16: two offices, “bishops and deacons” appointed by Apostles).
4.He believed that bishops were settled by the consent of the whole congregation, not by appointment of a prelate:
“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them [the Apostles], or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” ANF, Vol. 1, p. 17.
5.Disallowed haughty self exaltation by presbyters:
“For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of those who exalt themselves over His flock.” ANF, Vol. 1, p. 9.
6.He believed in the regulative principal in the government and order of the church:
“Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.” ANF, Vol. 1, p. 16; this is then applied to the order of the Church as established by the Apostles.
7.He firmly believed in divine election of the saints
“Day and night ye were anxious for the whole brotherhood, that the number of God's elect might be saved with mercy and a good conscience.” ANF, Vol. 1, p. 5.
“This blessedness cometh upon those who have been chosen by God through Jesus Christ our Lord; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” ANF, Vol. 1, p. 19.
3.He made early use of allegorization in discussing Rahab's red cord, and was credulous regarding the fable of the phoenix (cf. ANF, Vol. 1, pp. 8 and 12, respectively).
4.He held a very strong unity of the two administrations of the one covenant of grace:
1.He applied Mosaic themes to the New Testament Church:
“Every kind of honour and happiness was bestowed upon you, and then was fulfilled that which is written, 'My beloved did eat and drink, and was enlarged and became fat, and kicked.'” ANF, Vol. 1, p. 5 (citing Deuteronomy 32:15).
Old Testament examples demonstrate need for humility and true repentance: p. 19.
Divine judgment and chastening for our blessing: p. 20.
Abraham is “our father”,
OT saints cited as examples for our imitation in faith and obedience: p. 10.
Numerous citations of OT Scriptures (see above).
5.Lot's wife, who was turned into a pillar of salt, is reported by Clement (as well as Josephus, Antiquities, i. II, 4; and Irenaeus, Adversus Haeresis, iv. 31.
“He does not forsake those that hope in Him, but gives up such as depart from Him to punishment and torture. For Lot's wife, who was sent forth with him, being of a different mind from himself and not continuing in agreement with him [as to the command which had been given them], was made an example of, so as to be a pillar of salt unto this day.” (ANF, Vol. 1, p. 16).
6.God Himself is the Author of Scripture, not man:
1.“Now the faith which is in Christ confirms all these [admonitions]. For He Himself by the Holy Ghost thus addresses us: 'Come, ye children, hearken unto Me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord...'” (ANF, Vol. 1, p.11; citing Psalm 34:11 – 17, and going on to cite Psalm 32:10).
2.“Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.” (ANF, Vol. 1, p. 17).

Lessons from the life of Clement of Rome:

1.The doctrines and practices of the Reformation were not innovations, but maturation and development of post-apostolic seeds, such as justification sola fide, the authority and infallibility of Scripture, the God-breathed character of Scripture, predestination, election, Regulative Principal of Worship, etc.
2.Faithful pastors are not imperious, but filled with humility and care for the saints.
3.All of Scripture (OT and NT) is God breathed, and therefore profitable to build us up unto salvation.
4.Subjection to God-ordained church authorities leads to harmony and peace, and God's blessing rather than His curses upon us.
5.Episcopal hierarchy is nonsense, and not apostolic. Much less full blown papacy and the tyrannical actions of later popes and prelates.

---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------

Note: I do not sanction the allegorism or the fable of the phoenix.

 

[Jon 316]

I want to guard against pulling quotes of teh Fathers out of context, and my feeling at this point is that the general consensus of the Fathers tends towards free will and the possibilty of the saved being lost.

That being said,

“Certain ones of those [heretics] who hold different opinions misuse these passages. The essentially destroy free will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost”
-Origen, 225 A. D.

Origen seems to

1) Support Free will
2) Explicitly deny Radical Depravity (or the bondage of the will)
3) Support the idea that the regenerate can be lost

I want to avoid 'proof texting' the Fathers, but it does seem upon an initial reading of the Fathers that this is the overall consensus in these matters.


If this is true, I just wonder what are the implications for protestants from a historical perspective.

Thanks for the Study in Clement- I'll spend some time with it.

 

[rbcbob]

William Cunningham wrote:

The substance of the matter is this: The apostolical fathers generally use the language of the Scriptures upon these subjects, while they scarcely make any statements which afford us materials for deciding in what precise sense they understood them. They leave the matter very much where Scripture leaves it, and where, but for the rise of errors needing to be contradicted and opposed, it might still have been left. He who sees Augustinian or Calvinistic doctrines clearly and explicitly taught in the Bible, will have no difficulty in seeing also plain traces of them at least in the works of the apostolic fathers; and he who can pervert the statements of Scripture into an anti-Calvinistic sense, may, by the same process, and with equal ease, distort the apostolic fathers.- HISTORICAL THEOLOGY, VOLUME 1, p.180

 

[Jon 316]

William Cunningham wrote:

The substance of the matter is this: The apostolical fathers generally use the language of the Scriptures upon these subjects, while they scarcely make any statements which afford us materials for deciding in what precise sense they understood them. They leave the matter very much where Scripture leaves it, and where, but for the rise of errors needing to be contradicted and opposed, it might still have been left. He who sees Augustinian or Calvinistic doctrines clearly and explicitly taught in the Bible, will have no difficulty in seeing also plain traces of them at least in the works of the apostolic fathers; and he who can pervert the statements of Scripture into an anti-Calvinistic sense, may, by the same process, and with equal ease, distort the apostolic fathers.- HISTORICAL THEOLOGY, VOLUME 1, p.180

I have no problem with seeing "plain traces" of 'Calvinistic' (for want of a better term) within the writings, infact I rejoice when I do see them (since it reinforces my own beliefs) my concern is- the seeming overwhelming emphasis which seems to pull in the opposite direction.

“ Hoodwinking multitudes, [Marcus, the heretic] deceived many persons of this description who had become his disciples. He taught them that they were prone, no doubt, to sin. However, he said that they were beyond the reach of danger because they belonged to the perfect Power…”
-Hippolytus, 225 A.D.

“Certain ones of those [heretics] who hold different opinions misuse these passages. The essentially destroy free will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost”
-Origen, 225 A. D.

“Whoever that confessor is, he is not greater, better or dearer to God than Solomon. Solomon retained the grace that he had received from the Lord, as long as he walked in God’s ways. However, after he forsook the Lord’s ways, he also lost the Lord’s grace. For that reason it is written, “Hold fast that which you have, lest another take your crown.”. Assuredly, the Lord would not threaten that the crown of righteousness might be taken away if it were not that the crown must depart when righteousness departs…’He that endures to the end, the same will be saved.’ So, whatever comes before the end is a step, by which we ascend to the summit of salvation. It is not the finish, where the full result of the ascent is already gained”
-Cyprian, 250 A.D.


"We ought therefore, brethren, carefully to inquire concerning our salvation. Otherwise, the wicked one, having made his entrance by deceit, may hurl us forth from our life."
-Epistle of Barnabas, 70-100 A.D.

"The whole past time of your faith will profit you nothing, unless now in this wicked time we also withstand coming sources of danger...Take heed, lest resting at our ease, as those who are the called, we fall asleep in our sins. For then, the wicked Prince, acquiring power over us, will thrust us away from the Kingdom of the Lord...And you should pay attention to this all the more, my brothers, when you reflect on and see that even after such great signs and wonders had been performed in Israel, they were still abandoned. Let us beware lest we be found to be, as it is written, the "many who are called", but not the "few who are chosen" -Barnabas, 70-100 A.D.


"Let us then practice righteousness, so that we may be saved unto the end."
-Second Epistle of Clement, 150 A.D.

" For the Lord has sworn by His Glory, in regard to His elect, that if any one of them sin after a certain day which he has fixed, he will not be saved"
-The Shepherd of Hermas, 150 A.D.

" I hold further, that those of you who have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back for some reason to the Mosaic Law, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have not repented before death- you will by no means be saved"
-Justin Martyr, 160 A.D.

"…Rather, we should fear ourselves, lest perchance, after we have come to the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but are shut out of His Kingdom. And for that reason, Paul said ‘For if God spared no the natural branches, take heed, lest He also spare not you’ “
-Irenaeus, 180 A.D.

“It was not those who are on the outside that he said these things, but to us-lest we should be cast forth from the Kingdom of God, by doing any such thing. “
-Irenaeus, 180 A.D.

“Those who do not obey Him, being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.”
-Irenaeus, 180 A.D.

“God’s greatest gift is self-restraint. For He himself said ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you.’ as having judged you worthy according to the true election. Thus, then, while we attempt piously to advance, we will have put on us the mild yoke of the Lord ‘from faith to faith’, one charioteer driving each of us onward to salvation”
-Clement of Alexandria, 195 A.D.


“He who hopes for everlasting rest knows also that the entrance to it is toilsome and narrow. So let him who has once received the gospel not turn back…and let him not go back to his former life, or to heresies.”
-Clement of Alexandria, 195 A.D.

“It is neither the faith, nor the hope, nor the love, nor the endurance of one day; rather, ‘he that endures to the end will be saved.’”
-Clement or Alexandria, 195 A.D.

“ So even in the case of one who has done the greatest good deeds in his life, but at the end has run headlong into wickedness, all his former pains are profitless to him. For at the climax of the drama, he has given up his part”
-Clement of Alexandria, 195 A.D.

“No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end.”
-Tertullian, 197 A.D.

“The world returned to sin…and so it is destined to fire. So is the man who after baptism renews his sins”
-Tertullian, 198 A.D.

“God had foreseen…that faith-even after baptism-would be endangered. He saw that most persons-after obtaining salvation-would be lost again, by soiling their wedding dress, by failing to provide oil for their torches”
-Tertullian, 213 A.D.

“A man may possess an acquired righteousness, from which it is possible to fall away”
-Origen, 225 A.D.

“Being a believing man, if you seek to live as the Gentiles do, the joys of the world remove you from the grace of Christ.”
-Commodianus, 240 A.D.

“ There remains more than what is yet seen to be accomplished. For it is written, ‘Praise not any man before his death’. And again, ‘Be faithful unto death, and I will give you a crown of life’. And the Lord also says, ‘He that endures to the end, the same will be saved’”
-Cyprian of Carthage, 240 A.D.

“ It is a small thing to have first received something. It is a greater thing to be able to keep what you have attained. Faith itself and the saving birth do not make alive by merely being received. Rather, they must be preserved. It is not the actual attainment, but the perfecting, that keeps a man for God. The Lord taught this in His instruction when He said, ‘Look! You have been made whole. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you’. Solomon, Saul, and many others were able to keep the grace given to them so long as they walked in the Lord’s ways. However, when the discipline of the Lord was forsaken by them, grace also forsook them.”
-Cyprian, 250 A.D.

“ I ask that you will grieve with me at the spiritual death of my sister. For in this time of devastation, she has fallen from Christ”
-Cyprian, 250 A.D.

“It is clear that the devil is driven out in baptism, by the faith of the believer. But he returns if the faith should afterwards fail.”
-Cyprian, 250 A.D.

“To anyone who is born and dies, is there not a necessity at some time…to suffer the loss of his estate? Only let not Christ be forsaken, so that the loss of salvation and of an eternal home would be feared.”
-Cyprian, 250 A.D.

“There is need of continual prayer and supplication so that we do not fall away from the heavenly kingdom, as the Jews fell away, to whom this promise had first been given.”
-Cyprian, 250 A.D.

“He says, ‘He that endures to the end, the same will be saved.’ And again He says, ‘if you continue in my word, you will truly be my disciples’. So there needs to be patience in order that hope and faith may attain their result.”
-Cyprian, 250 A.D.

“ As to one who again denies Christ, no special previous standing can be effective to him for salvation. For any one of us will hold it necessary that whatever is the last thing to be found in a man in this respect, that is where he will be judged. All of those things which he has previously done are wiped away and obliterated.”
-Anonymous treatise on re-baptism, 255 A.D.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

John from Scotland....

First off I would recommend the Scriptures. They are where we get our doctrines. Origen had many problems. Baptism was an issue that had many problems also if you read the Early Church Fathers.

Plus, you might want to acknowlege, everyone was struggling to understand doctrine.... We find this a lot today.

(Act 18:24) And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

(Act 18:25) This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

(Act 18:26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

The councils through the ages addressed major problems. These problems and confusions have been addressed in a rather progressive mode, if I may suggest it. The fundamentals, doctrine of Christ, the trinity, were all doctrines discussed. We use the Fathers for reference because we are a historical church. God gave us Pastors and Teachers to help us understand. [as a side note, all knowledge seems to build and grow. We have automobiles and planes today.] If you want to read someone who references the Catholics and the Fathers, I am not sure you will find anyone any better than Calvin. BTW, the Pelagian Augustinian controversey was about the doctrine of Justification. So it was a brewing. It followed in line with the centuries of scholarship and learning the Who, Whats, Whens, Wheres, and Why Fors. Controversies and doctrinal issues surface and grow in understanding. I am sure St. Paul and St. John taught their disciples the truth. Good thing God had them writing things down as they were moved by His Spirit so that when their teachings got distorted the truth could still be found. We see it even in our Churches today. The Students are taught. They veer away sometimes and make strong doctrinal changes based upon their own understanding which infects their generation and the following ones. It is nothing new. That is why sola scriptura and the standards are so important.

BTW, what have you found in Polycarp?

And another thing. I do believe in perseverance of the faith. I do believe that some who claim Christ fall away. Who ever disputed that? That is a major important doctrine and one that we are encouraged to examine much. "Examine yourselves," as the Scripture says, "whether you be in the faith." (2 Cor 13:5)

The fathers addressed things as they had to deal and grow in them. Did you know that a great part of the church was basically Arian at one time. That was until the the Council Chalcedon in the middle of the 5th Century I believe. The independent Fathers weren't perfect exegetes. No one ever claimed that. But they were given wisdom and insight in a good many areas where we substantiate our beliefs. We are still using them today.

BTW agian, I have read many good exhortations from the Puritans who are Reformed that sound a lot like the quotes above. Have you not read many of the Puritans and Reformers?

 

[DTK]

Having spent some time reading through the writings of the Fathers, I cannot help but notice the lack of teaching that coincides with a lot of 'reformed' doctrines.

Now I appreciate that

The Fathers works are not scripture

I also appreciate that it is generally agreed that they 'lived their theology' rather than spending time debating precision of words etc.

But I also appreciate that they are not heretics, yet many of their views would be considered heretical by reformed people especially when these views are rearticulated today. Indeed many of their writings seem more arminian in nature.

My question is, from the perspective of a historian- is this not problematic for protestants?

Let's include your signature quote as well...

"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent." John Calvin

Given your having spent "some time reading through the writings of the Fathers" and what I assume is your general admiration for Calvin, please tell me how you reconcile your assessment of the early church fathers with Calvin's affirmation in his Prefatory Address to King Francis at the beginning of his Institutes, where he said,

"Moreover, they (i.e., the Romanists) unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory—to put it very modestly—would turn to our side." John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), Vol. 1, p. 18.

Could it be that your assessment of what constitutes Reformed theology and Protestantism is limited by the scope of a few subjects that you set out to discover in the Early Church Fathers? Could it be that Calvin himself was free of your own anachronistic presuppositions?

In short, I suspect that Calvin was a much better student of the early church fathers than yourself, and that his own assessment of them included a much broader scope than that which guided your own reading of the same.

But, the answer to your question - is this not problematic for protestants? - is no, because the ancient church fathers are not our infallible rule of faith. And what you won't find in Romanism or in Eastern Orthodoxy today, but which you will find in the early church fathers profusely, in spite of all of the shortcomings we may perceive in them from the perspective of our day, removed centuries from them in time, is that repeatedly, over and over again, they point us to Holy Scripture as the only infallible rule of faith, and that is something no non-protestant can stomach, not even for a moment.

 

[P.F.]

Having spent some time reading through the writings of the Fathers, I cannot help but notice the lack of teaching that coincides with a lot of 'reformed' doctrines.

e.g

• Emphasis on free will
  
• Clear emphasis that believers can lose their salvation
  
• Emphasis on salavation being by both faith and works

Now I appreciate that

The Fathers works are not scripture

I also appreciate that it is generally agreed that they 'lived their theology' rather than spending time debating precision of words etc.

But I also appreciate that they are not heretics, yet many of their views would be considered heretical by reformed people especially when these views are rearticulated today. Indeed many of their writings seem more arminian in nature.

My question is, from the perspective of a historian- is this not problematic for protestants?

How much reading have you done? But yes, there are a significant number of "Arminian" sounding fathers - just as they have lots of problems in their theology in lots of areas. You might benefit from reading John Gill's The Cause of God and Truth, part IV:
Introduction Part 4 (introduction)

Gill demonstrates that the Reformed doctrines relating to soteriology are far from a novelty of any kind.

Perhaps as you do more reading among the fathers, you will notice the vast variety both over the centuries and from region to region. The variety is both in terms of how correct doctrine is explained and also in terms of the errors that are made.

 

[Jon 316]

Thanks for the responses.

A couple of people asked how much have I read etc

Probably no where nearly as much as many people on here. I have been doing some preparatory reading for an MA in church history that I am considering applying for

Postgraduate Church History (distance learning) Masters MA at Department of Theology and Religious Studies

My initial obserrvations of the particular texts I had been reading is that they seem to swing towards works based salvation.

Anyway, the responses here have been helpful. Two different protestant responses it seems are

1) Disagreement that the fathers taught free will, possibility of falling away etc These responses seem to filter the fathers through a 'reformed lense'

2) Aknowledgement that the fathers taught these things, but this is explained as human error, in otherwords the fathers are a very mixed bag- and doctrine was still being worked out etc.

Thanks

 

[Jared]

One thing we should keep in mind is that there was so much persecution and civil unrest in the early church that they didn't really have time to sit down and formulate all of their views on particular doctrines. That's the explanation that my church history professor gave us for the poor doctrine in the early church, and he was Pentecostal.

 

[SolaGratia]

The church fathers have written big works on the virtues without prating; even a scholarly treatise cannot exhaust the profundity of one virtue.
For true devotion, however, it is not necessary to read the excellent works of the church fathers, but only to understand the one basic rule of the Bible. - John Calvin (The best student ever of the church father's)

 

[Jared]

Christusregnat, do you have some online sources to show that Clement of Rome was a monergist? I'd like to read more about him.

 

[jwithnell]

I think it's a mistake to say that what we have as doctrine today is, or should be, the same as what the Fathers held. Dogma yes: Christ alone understood through scripture alone. Perhaps the early creeds would be an even better summary of what absolutely must be held to be considered Christian.

But so much of what we understand in the broader doctrinal sense has become more focused and understood over time. Reading C. Van Til is different from reading Jonathan Edwards who is different from reading the Fathers ... God's word is inexhaustible and he has given godly men over time the ability to give a proper exegesis of the scriptures expanding our understanding as believers.

Please don't misunderstand this for the "personal enlightenment" junk and evolution of thought evidenced in liberal and neo-orthodox writers. Everything given doctrinally must be derived from scripture that has been understood by other scriptures.

 

[dudley]

I also have seen witness by the Gospel writers and early church fathers that would sa

Jon,

I am surprised that any reformed confessions would teach Justification by faith and good works. I am not aware of any. I also have seen witness by the Gospel writers and early church fathers that would say they believed in a Reformed theology. I am a Presbyterian but was at one time a Roman catholic. Justification is seen by Protestants as being the theological fault line that divided Roman Catholic from Protestant during the Reformation.

Justification by faith alone is the essential difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant church. R.C. Sproul explains this well: "The Roman Catholic view of justification [is that] God declares a person to be just when justice (or righteousness) inheres in the person. The person, under divine analysis or scrutiny, is found to be just. God justifies the just...By stark and radical contrast the Reformation view of justification is that God declares a person just based upon something [external to them], something not inherent in the person: the imputed righteousness of Christ."

Romans 4:5 very clearly teaches that we are at the same time justified and sinners: "Now to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness." Notice that it says "God justifies the ungodly." That is, justification respects the ungodly. Therefore, justification cannot be based upon anything inherent in us--because we are ungodly when we are first justified. Also notice that justification is given to the one who does not work for it, but to the one who believes. Therefore, you do not earn justification through good works. Instead, it is given to you simply through faith.

There are also many verses which speak of this righteousness as being given to us, indicating that it is imputed. Romans 4:6 says that God "reckons [or imputes] righteousness apart from works." Romans 5:17 says that believers receive the "gift of righteousness" from Christ.
There is one more thing we need to keep very clear about faith: it is not something worthy of merit that earns us justification. It is connects us with Christ's righteousness, but does not earn us Christ's righteousness. Faith is an act, but it is not a work. In other words, God doesn't give justification because of any value in your faith--because your faith is a such a great thing that it deserves reward--but because it is how you are united to Christ.

As a Roman catholic I needed to belong to the Roman Church to be saved. I had to do good works and work with much effort and much guilt to save myself. I know now as a Protestant that none of this could save my soul. Salvation was bestowed because of God’s mercy. Salvation by Faith alone...the Protestant doctrine of Justification. I now understand the scripture when it says:

In Titus Ch. 2 v. 11, I read: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.”
These words make it very clear that Salvation is by Grace. It is God reaching down to the helpless sinner, revealing to him that He loves him so much that He sent His Son to the cross. There, He took the sinner’s place by becoming his substitute. He paid the penalty for sin that the sinner should have paid.

The following also attests to the Protestant doctrine of Justification. It also attests to me why the Church of Rome is wrong in condemning the Protestant doctrine and distorting the truth. It is why I am now a Protestant, a Presbyterian and why I renounced the Roman Catholic church.
In Titus Ch. 3 v. 4 - 5, I read: “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us...”.

The words of Romans Ch. 3 v. 24, summed it all up. They read: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” I could now see that God gave Salvation FREELY to sinful man. The sinner was not required to work for it.
I decided to become a Presbyterian because I asked myself "Either the Roman Catholic Church is very right, OR if it’s not, it’s very wrong?" I discovered after serious contemplation, prayer and study that I came to believe it was wrong and a false teacher of the true Gospel of Christ. There can no in-between on this issue

I am a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian today because I surrender to the objective truth I found in Protestantism and the Reformed faith. I am an ex Roman Catholic. I renounced Roman Catholicism after I found this truth. "If you also see the glory of this truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone, then raise up the white flag of surrender and stop fighting ..."

The cross is the apex of history, and we must personally have a conversion experience by trusting in Christ as our Lord and Savior. The Reformed theology is the only Protestant theology that praises the sovereignty of God and the governmental structure is biblically sound. I believe this Board , the PB, embraces that truth.

“And so, I believe this board embraces the Reformation and it embraces the Reformation's historic confessions because they proclaim Christ and Him crucified. They unabashedly express the full nature of God and the wonder of the great salvation He has brought to His enemies that He loved beforehand.” he justifies all who place faith in Him alone, we are not saved by our good works.

 

[DTK]

Jon 316 wrote...

1) Disagreement that the fathers taught free will, possibility of falling away etc These responses seem to filter the fathers through a 'reformed lense'

I missed someone responding that way - could you please point me to that comment and/or comments.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Jon 316 wrote...

1) Disagreement that the fathers taught free will, possibility of falling away etc These responses seem to filter the fathers through a 'reformed lense'

I missed someone responding that way - could you please point me to that comment and/or comments.

Me too. The doctrine of the perseverance of the faith presupposes some will fall away and they need to be warned. It will be on there heads if they deny Christ. I will say this. It isn't up to the sheep to get into the fold. But we are warned about it. For our own good. The Shepherd is responsible for that.

Ever Read Matthew Mead Jon from Scotland?
Grace Gems!

 

[DTK]

The doctrine of the perseverance of the faith presupposes some will fall away and they need to be warned. It will be on there heads if they deny Christ. I will say this. It isn't up to the sheep to get into the fold. But we are warned about it. For our own good. The Shepherd is responsible for that.

Randy, I do agree. I suppose that I would simply express it this way . . . that both the certainty and the necessity of the true believer's perseverance are equally revealed in Holy Scripture.

 

[P.F.]

Two different protestant responses it seems are

1) Disagreement that the fathers taught free will, possibility of falling away etc These responses seem to filter the fathers through a 'reformed lense'

2) Aknowledgement that the fathers taught these things, but this is explained as human error, in otherwords the fathers are a very mixed bag- and doctrine was still being worked out etc.

Thanks

Like DTK, I didn't see anyone give answer #1. The primary problem with the way the question is phrased is the idea that "the fathers" have a harmonious teaching on the subject. There are fathers like Origin who believed that hell itself would eventually be emptied, so that salvation would eventually be universal with respect to humanity (I think he left the devil and the non-elect angels there). There are fathers like Augustine (and Augustinian fathers and writers) who taught that the elect would persevere by God's grace. If one is looking at the "apostolic fathers," one sees clear references to predestination.

There is also a further complication to the analysis, namely that the definition of "free will" and what constitutes it is something that is not always clear. Thus, folks like Jonathan Edwards and Augustine affirm "free will" even while their opponents would tend to claim that they deny it (using a different definition of free will).

The teaching of God's providence in a fairly strong sense does seem to have prevailed in the West from the earliest time through much of the medieval period, from the reading I've done (which is far from exhaustive). There are also many Eastern fathers who seem to have had a fairly strong sense of the providence and predestination of God, while there are others who were much more hesitant and ended up interpreting the Scriptural testimonies regarding God's providence and predestination in extraordinarily strained ways.

Finally, the question of justification is again a highly complex topic from the standpoint of historical analysis. Part of the complexity is the fact that the Eastern writers mostly wrote in Greek (or sometimes Coptic or Syriac) whereas the Westerners (after Tertullian) mostly wrote in Latin. Even within the language groups there was sometimes difficulty in distinguishing between what we would call "justification," what we would call "sanctification," and what we would call "glorification." In other words, in Augustine (for example) you may hear him calling something "justification" or "sanctification" and he may be flipping the terms from the way we would use them, or he may be using one term to refer to the entire process from regeneration to glorification.

One of the great benefits of the scholastic period was the desire to think through issues precisely. The Reformers stood on their shoulders and (aided by the "humanist" scholarship in the original languages of Scriptures) advanced their methodology to provide a level of precision and systematization in theology that one simply doesn't find in even the greatest thinkers of the ancient world.

On the other hand, of course the details of Reformed theology are not themselves new precisely because they are drawn from Scripture. So, for example, one finds the following remarkable passage in Augustine, On the Trinity 4:13:17, in which Augustine contrasts Christ the mediator of life with devil:

Because that deceiver then—who was a mediator to death for man, and feignedly puts himself forward as to life, under the name of cleansing by sacrilegious rites and sacrifices, by which the proud are led away—can neither share in our death, nor rise again from his own: he has indeed been able to apply his single death to our double one; but he certainly has not been able to apply a single resurrection, which should be at once a mystery of our renewal, and a type of that waking up which is to be in the end. He then who being alive in the spirit raised again His own flesh that was dead, the true Mediator of life, has cast out him, who is dead in the spirit and the mediator of death, from the spirits of those who believe in Himself, so that he should not reign within, but should assault from without, and yet not prevail. And to him, too, He offered Himself to be tempted, in order that He might be also a mediator to overcome his temptations, not only by succor, but also by example. But when the devil, from the first, although striving through every entrance to creep into His inward parts, was thrust out, having finished all his alluring temptation in the wilderness after the baptism; because, being dead in the spirit, he forced no entrance into Him who was alive in the spirit, he betook himself, through eagerness for the death of man in any way whatsoever, to effecting that death which he could, and was permitted to effect it upon that mortal element which the living Mediator had received from us. And where he could do anything, there in every respect he was conquered; and wherein he received outwardly the power of slaying the Lord in the flesh, therein his inward power, by which he held ourselves, was slain. For it was brought to pass that the bonds of many sins in many deaths were loosed, through the one death of One which no sin had preceded. Which death, though not due, the Lord therefore rendered for us, that the death which was due might work us no hurt. For He was not stripped of the flesh by obligation of any authority, but He stripped Himself. For doubtless He who was able not to die, if He would not, did die because He would: and so He made a show of principalities and powers, openly triumphing over them in Himself. For whereas by His death the one and most real sacrifice was offered up for us, whatever fault there was, whence principalities and powers held us fast as of right to pay its penalty, He cleansed, abolished, extinguished; and by His own resurrection He also called us whom He predestinated to a new life; and whom He called, them He justified; and whom He justified, them He glorified. And so the devil, in that very death of the flesh, lost man, whom he was possessing as by an absolute right, seduced as he was by his own consent, and over whom he ruled, himself impeded by no corruption of flesh and blood, through that frailty of man's mortal body, whence he was both too poor and too weak; he who was proud in proportion as he was, as it were, both richer and stronger, ruling over him who was, as it were, both clothed in rags and full of troubles. For whither he drove the sinner to fall, himself not following, there by following he compelled the Redeemer to descend. And so the Son of God deigned to become our friend in the fellowship of death, to which because he came not, the enemy thought himself to be better and greater than ourselves. For our Redeemer says, "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Wherefore also the devil thought himself superior to the Lord Himself, inasmuch as the Lord in His sufferings yielded to him; for of Him, too, is understood what is read in the Psalm, "For You have made Him a little lower than the angels:" so that He, being Himself put to death, although innocent, by the unjust one acting against us as it were by just right, might by a most just right overcome him, and so might lead captive the captivity wrought through sin, and free us from a captivity that was just on account of sin, by blotting out the handwriting, and redeeming us who were to be justified although sinners, through His own righteous blood unrighteously poured out.

That, of course, does not have the benefit of the Remonstrant controversy, but the lines largely could equally have come from the pen of a Calvinist theologian, don't you think?

 

[Iconoclast]

Jon,
If the word reformation means setting things right,that the "Reformation" took place, presupposes that men had gotten off the track , and that early on in church history.
Paul and John warn the first century church that there were men who would come in among the saints,who had already departed from Apostolic doctrine. Acts 20....1 Jn.....,Jude...letters to the seven churches.We should not be surprised.
By the time the "church fathers "were on the scene, the horse was already out of the barn.
The roman Church persecuted those who tried to be faithful to whatever truth they were able to gather to them selves.
At best it was probably truth, with error not far away.
We should be glad and see how blessed we are of God, in that he has raised up men who would stand for truth even unto death. It should spur us on to holy study of the word,with a view to holy obediance ,and service to our Great God and King.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The doctrine of the perseverance of the faith presupposes some will fall away and they need to be warned. It will be on there heads if they deny Christ. I will say this. It isn't up to the sheep to get into the fold. But we are warned about it. For our own good. The Shepherd is responsible for that.

Randy, I do agree. I suppose that I would simply express it this way . . . that both the certainty and the necessity of the true believer's perseverance are equally revealed in Holy Scripture.

Thanks Pastor,

Just like you I would only refer to the canon. I have a hope and it is eternal. Not just because I believe it. John 5;24 and 1 John.

(Joh 5:24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

(1Jn 5:11) And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

(1Jn 5:12) He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

(1Jn 5:13) These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Either I have it or I don't. I believe I do based upon the person and work of Christ. That is as old as it gets.

 

[TxSpurgeon]

Many of the "Church Father's" teaching led to Roman Catholicism and Pelagian beliefs. What the Reformation was, was getting back to apostolic teaching. Many of these "Church Fathers" are the ones to blame for many of the heresies that followed. They were mere men. Their writings were not inspired. Although many church fathers were brilliant men, Take their writings for what they are, and don't put them on the same level as scripture. That is precisely what is wrong with the Catholic church now.

 

[DTK]

Many of the "Church Father's" teaching led to Roman Catholicism and Pelagian beliefs. What the Reformation was, was getting back to apostolic teaching. Many of these "Church Fathers" are the ones to blame for many of the heresies that followed. They were mere men. Their writings were not inspired. Although many church fathers were brilliant men, Take their writings for what they are, and don't put them on the same level as scripture. That is precisely what is wrong with the Catholic church now.

I think this analysis is too simplistic.

 

[TxSpurgeon]

Many of the "Church Father's" teaching led to Roman Catholicism and Pelagian beliefs. What the Reformation was, was getting back to apostolic teaching. Many of these "Church Fathers" are the ones to blame for many of the heresies that followed. They were mere men. Their writings were not inspired. Although many church fathers were brilliant men, Take their writings for what they are, and don't put them on the same level as scripture. That is precisely what is wrong with the Catholic church now.

I think this analysis is too simplistic.

How so? I can always stand corrected. Please explain yourself.

 

[DTK]

How so? I can always stand corrected. Please explain yourself.

Your summary of the early church, your summary of laying the blame for Romanism at the feet of the ECFs, your summary of the Reformation...The Church didn't begin with the apostles and suddenly jump to the Reformation. Your post fails to appreciate the diversity of the views as reflected by the ECFs, and even the Reformers' use of the ECFs in their own writings. In short, your post *suggests* to me that you have either little or only a superficial exposure to church history. The Reformers themselves didn't simply return to apostolic teaching, but even they took great pains to demonstrate how in *many* ways it was Rome that departed from the teaching of many of the ECFs and their adherence to apostolic doctrine, not the Reformers.

To be sure, there is *some* truth in your post, but it's simply too encompassing in its perspective to be regarded seriously. That's why I said your analysis is too simplistic. It reflects no appreciation for the diversity of views that are to be found reflected in the history of the church.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Calvin on an "Early Church Father":

Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I posted this in another thread but this a good resource for this topic also.

The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament ... : Thomas Dehany Bernard : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[TxSpurgeon]

How so? I can always stand corrected. Please explain yourself.

Your summary of the early church, your summary of laying the blame for Romanism at the feet of the ECFs, your summary of the Reformation...The Church didn't begin with the apostles and suddenly jump to the Reformation. Your post fails to appreciate the diversity of the views as reflected by the ECFs, and even the Reformers' use of the ECFs in their own writings. In short, your post *suggests* to me that you have either little or only a superficial exposure to church history. The Reformers themselves didn't simply return to apostolic teaching, but even they took great pains to demonstrate how in *many* ways it was Rome that departed from the teaching of many of the ECFs and their adherence to apostolic doctrine, not the Reformers.

To be sure, there is *some* truth in your post, but it's simply too encompassing in its perspective to be regarded seriously. That's why I said your analysis is too simplistic. It reflects no appreciation for the diversity of views that are to be found reflected in the history of the church.

I will admit, it was very general. I also, I didn't mean ALL ECF's. I also realize that the Reformation didn't happen until WAY WAY later. I know that the ECF's that the reformers held in high esteem were sound theologically, otherwise the reformers wouldnt have supported them. The reformers, were well versed in scripture. I will be honest, that my exposure to church history is limited, and I am counting on all of you to help me out and teach me. Many of you are very educated in this field, and I look forward to learning from you guys.
OK, So the ECF's teaching was contrary to the direction Rome went. I guess I judged them on some of the quotes above, which seem to have semi-pelagian leanings. Please correct me again if I am wrong, I gotta ask to learn. LOL Y'all take care.

 

[Hebrew Student]

Jon316,

I think it is also important to keep in mind, along with the diversity of the patristic writers, that there were varying degrees of knowledge amongst the early church. Just because you lived in the third or fourth century doesn't mean you were able to do good sound Biblical exegesis. For example, one of the concerns that I have had with this kind of argument is that the knowledge of Hebrew gradually diminished within the Christian church. I have found many of the interpretations of the Hebrew Bible found in the fathers to be completely worthless because they have more in common with Plato than they do with Ancient Near Eastern Judaica. While there were notable exceptions to this [i.e. Jerome etc.], for the most part, the study of Hebrew in the Christian tradition does not have a very ancient history. In fact, at the time of the reformation, widespread Christian study of the Hebrew scriptures was a relatively new phenomenon.

God Bless,
Adam