Quote:

---

On today's program, I discuss the doctrine of justification by faith alone as taught in the Lutheran tradition and its relation to the teachings of the early church. I argue that there is some precedent for such a teaching in some of the earliest Christian writings. Along with this, I spent a long time talking about how to read and use the fathers honestly and fruitfully.

---

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/sola-fide-in-the-church-fathers/

One of my favorite dudes to follow.. him and @revcjackson are two of my faves.

He concentrates quite a bit in this on Chemnitz and Ambrose.

Now, Cooper has written a whole (Delightful) book on Theosis as well, positing that Theosis should be the beginning of all ecumenical talks, since we all partake in this belief in some manner.

Cooper mentions that he does not like quote mining and commentary on Church fathers, because people do it in a way we wouldn't ever allow with the Scripture..and broadly, most people do not practice proper exegesis on their works.

(bear with me, I'm writing notes as I listen)

Subject that he agrees that all Church fathers are unanimous on: Baptismal Regeneration. Real Presence in the Eucharist (although how that works varies slightly) but otherwise, you find quite a bit of difference in tone/opinion/etc on most topics. You are unlikely to read the fathers and be able to shoebox them into any specific doctrine. Shoehorn?

So how do we read them without reading our own bias into the fathers? When is it okay to disagree with them? We don't have to force a unanimous consensus on them because they didn't force it on themselves.

He tangents a bit about the use of iconography and papacy not being a source of consensus in the fathers.. mentions I think the Nicean 2 and Council of Elvira(?) ... he's talking about how people will try to claim consensus of the early church regarding these topics.

He mentions going forward, when he talks about Protestants, he is basically speaking of high church, sacramental, lutheran/reform/anglican types.

This is all background stuff to set up the doctrine of Justification talk, which starts 20 minutes in.

As Christians, the fathers were not arguing about Justification, because "who is Jesus" was a big enough topic at the time. No one argues that Christians are not expected to do good works and exercise their faith. So their defenses of the faith are more concentrated on paganism and gnosticism etc.

Personal note, Gerhards works on the subject are being translated to be put out by CPH....noted for future reference and my next big theological purchase talk. He is right now talking about theologians from many perspectives that talk about justification/theosis from church fathers.


Augustine does not see Justification as a legal term (a declaration) but more a of transformative word.. a "making righteous".

well, I can't keep up taking notes. Good stuff, but I'm googling on stuff so I can read as I listen. I am really enjoying this podcast though. I like the way Cooper talks about this stuff. I wish he wrote instead of podcasted...but that's mostly cause I can read faster than I can listen and with more understanding.

He really dislikes Tomas Oden's and Michael Horton's books on the church fathers... interesting because he is friends with Horton (I think). However, basically calling him scholastically lazy and that is really not normal for them except specifically in handling the fathers. likes Nick Needham's books on soteriology of the church fathers and D.H. Williams. Says the Michael Holmes translations of the apostolic church fathers are the best modern translations.

Clement
Ignatius
Polycarp
Barnabus
Shepherd of Hermas? (never heard it)
Epistle to Diognetus (his fave)

his faves are diognetus and clement

Clement talks about Romans (the book of the Bible) quite a bit, which makes sense since that is where he is from. Romans 4, using justification, gift, type languages that we receive through faith. Summarizes "All therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or their righteousness, but instead through God's will" This is the earliest doctrine of justification by faith alone by a church father, which is in the 90s AD

(2nd clement definitely is NOT the same as 1st Clement and pretty much no one thinks they are the same author)

Polycarp has a short "knowing that by grace you have been saved, but not by works... ah lost it. Can't type fast enough anymore. This is Chapter 1 of his work? Goes into the second chapter, which without context would sound more Roman Catholic and first without context would sound pure Lutheran. We argue there is evidentiary value of our faith at judgement, so while the sins have already been taken away by Christ's sacrifice, all is left is the good works, which are evidence of our faith.

Feels Ignatius doesn't talk thoroughly enough on the subject

Diognetus: anonymous author..some think it is Justin Martyr..but Cooper thinks that it is absoutely not.
God allowed us to stray, but because he was patient, creating the present season of righteous but by only the goodness of God could we enter the Kingdom of Heaven for him (2nd use of the law)

Found the quote online

Quote:

---

And when our iniquity had been fully
accomplished, and it had been made perfectly manifest
that punishment and death were expected as its
recompense, and the season came which God had
ordained, when henceforth He should manifest His
goodness and power (O the exceeding great kindness and
love of God), He hated us not, neither rejected us,
nor bore us malice, but was long-suffering and
patient, and in pity for us took upon Himself our
sins, and Himself parted with His own Son as a ransom
for us, the holy for the lawless, the guileless for
the evil, _the just for the unjust,_ the incorruptible
for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal.
9:3 For what else but His righteousness would have
covered our sins?
9:4 In whom was it possible for us lawless and
ungodly men to have been justified, save only in the
Son of God?
9:5 O the sweet exchange, O the inscrutable
creation, O the unexpected benefits; that the iniquity
of many should be concealed in One Righteous Man, and
the righteousness of One should justify many that are
iniquitous!

---

interesting how Luther-like that sounds
Alien righteousness and substitution both sound pretty clear in that.
Imputation of Christ's righteousness to us.

Ambrose is also super clear, but ran out time.

I find it hard to take notes when he talks about the meaty stuff, because I'm listening too hard. I'm afraid this summary is not helpful at all. Plus rewinding is a pain. This is why I'd rather read.

Oh goodness gracious that is a rambling train of awfulness.
If you ever wondered what my notes looked like in college.. this isn't far from it.

I just don't like when people post podcasts/videos without much summary/information, so I didn't want to do that.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Oh goodness gracious that is a rambling train of awfulness.
If you ever wondered what my notes looked like in college.. this isn't far from it.

I just don't like when people post podcasts/videos without much summary/information, so I didn't want to do that.

---

So...are you going to share the podcast/video?

Sounds interesting, thanks for posting. Would also be interested to see the link!

I really didn't put the link in the OP. Haven't been eating much, it's affecting my brain I guess!

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/sola-fide-in-the-church-fathers/

A couple thoughts/comments on your original post:

1. I have this queued up and ready to go for my flight today. I think topics like this are where Jordan's at his best. I believe one of his masters was focused specifically on patristics, so he tends to be very comfortable on these kinds of things.

2. I'm pretty sure Gerhard's book comes out relatively soon. It's posted on the cph website (price is "discounted" to $50.

3. If you haven't read much of Chemnitz and like references to the Church Fathers, he's your guy. I've been working through his multi-volume examination of the Council of Trent, and he spends a lot of time showing that Lutheran's were not inventing theology, but looking back to the Fathers. CPH has his 8 volume set on sale right now for $250.

I have not read a ton of Chemnitz. If you were curious about something you could get me for my upcoming birthday, I would love that set


I would love to hear your thoughts on this episode. I'm hoping he makes it a series.

That was a good. I listened while cooking and driving to work this morning, so I'm mostly going from memory here. Bullets are used here to make this post look organized; in reality, I'm just too lazy to compose coherent paragraphs right now.

• First of all, I really appreciate y'all. You make me think, and you expose me to all kinds of ideas I would not have otherwise encountered.
  
• The recording ended pretty abruptly (but conveniently, right as I parked at my office). There was a lot of foundational material that preceded the meat of the topic.
  
• Nevertheless, I found that foundational stuff really fascinating. We just never really talked about the Church Fathers growing up.
  
• The writings that address sola fide do so indirectly because the wiriters were addressing different challenges to the church. The nature of salvation by grace was tangential to the topics that were prevalent at the time (e.g., Gnosticism). That's more a paraphrase than a comment; I just found it really interesting.
  
• My take-away: Ultimately, the point is that we as Christians disagree about some pretty big ideas today, but the earliest theologians did, too. Intellect is a gift from God, and it glorifies the Father when we use that gift to contemplate his nature, but our disagreements should be friendly. We are talking about some really smart guys here, but I think it's worth remembering that Jesus chose fishermen and tax collectors to follow him. If some blue collar guys and municipal bureaucrats were faithful disciples, it's okay for us to scratch our heads at some of these deep issues.
  

Quote:

---

He used the wickedness of His persecutors for the redemption of all men in such a way that in the mystery of His Death and Resurrection even His murderers could have been saved, if they had believed.Pope St. Leo the Great, Hom. 54 #FathersoftheChurch

---

Quote:

---

The writings that address sola fide do so indirectly because the wiriters were addressing different challenges to the church. The nature of salvation by grace was tangential to the topics that were prevalent at the time (e.g., Gnosticism). That's more a paraphrase than a comment; I just found it really interesting.

My take-away: Ultimately, the point is that we as Christians disagree about some pretty big ideas today, but the earliest theologians did, too. Intellect is a gift from God, and it glorifies the Father when we use that gift to contemplate his nature, but our disagreements should be friendly. We are talking about some really smart guys here, but I think it's worth remembering that Jesus chose fishermen and tax collectors to follow him. If some blue collar guys and municipal bureaucrats were faithful disciples, it's okay for us to scratch our heads at some of these deep issues.

---

To your first point - I don't think this is entirely accurate. There is a massive amount of material that we call the writings of the fathers. Patristics covers a massive library, everything from Church History, catechetical works, scriptural commentary and homilies, letters (both pastoral and friendly), doctrinal statements or instructions, to polemics. Only polemics themselves directly address specific heresies and would fall under that first category.

It isn't as if the writings of the early church of a pastoral nature are devoid of commentary on soteriology. They may not talk about a doctrine of justification by faith, but that by no means indicates that there's nothing there to be learned.

However, when the issue was raised - particularly by the Lutherans to Patriarch Jeremias - it was answered negatively that in the terms presented by the Lutheran factions. Like anything else, a formal answer or polemic commentary on a doctrine can't exist until it is answering a theologoumenon, an opinion or thought about God. But that doesn't mean that the faith is silent on that topic. The Faith was that Jesus Christ was God before the formalized doctrine of homoousios was expressed at Nicaea. Similarly, the Faith passed on by the disciples is fully sufficient to rationalize salvation.

The entire sola fide discussion is one between Rome and the west. The east largely rejects the premise on both sides. And so, it is extremely risky to go read the Fathers who lived centuries before and attempt to shoehorn them into positions on either side of an issue of in some cases technical theology that their language can't really support.

That isn't to say the fathers didn't or wouldn't have opinions on it. But the entire concept of forensic justification etc. is at best a new way to describe an old idea. At worst it is a total novelty to the faith.

I guess my point is, it extremely disingenuous to approach the writings of the fathers with the question: what do they think about sola fide? Better to say - what terms, thoughts, models, did the fathers use to describe the ineffable reality of salvation?

(((Edit: Ha, I just got to the part where he basically says this in the podcast.)))

The debates of the Reformation were between people who had a largely rational view of theology heavily influenced by the Scholastic tradition. The fathers don't commend on the debates between these parties, because they don't share this kind of language.

/////

And this frames the problem with the second point. I don't accept the idea that because there isn't a rationalized, dogmatic, doctrinal statement that they disagreed. A variance of language does not point to a variance in the faith! Not absent some kind of definitive agreement. In other words, there is dogmatic fact - the life of the Church, the actuality of the Faith. Then there is dogmatic expression, when the Church collectively defines the reality that already exists. Only then can we say, this is an authentic expression of the Faith, and disagreement on this puts you outside of the Faith.

Jesus chose fisherman and tax collectors to follow Him, yes - but this kind of knowledge is spiritual, and comes from a divine gift. Those who have it are enlightened; this isn't about reason or rational ability but humility, kenosis or emptying, and divine illumination. The authentic expression of the faith isn't an anti-intellectual one, but one that humbles the intellectuals - as the scribes responded, "aren't these ordinary and unschooled men?"

None of this should be used as a pretense for, or an excuse to accept, divisions, heresy, and schism.

Quote:

---

My take-away: Ultimately, the point is that we as Christians disagree about some pretty big ideas today, but the earliest theologians did, too. Intellect is a gift from God, and it glorifies the Father when we use that gift to contemplate his nature, but our disagreements should be friendly. We are talking about some really smart guys here, but I think it's worth remembering that Jesus chose fishermen and tax collectors to follow him. If some blue collar guys and municipal bureaucrats were faithful disciples, it's okay for us to scratch our heads at some of these deep issues.

---

Here here. If there is one consistent trend from the inception of Christianity till now, then it is ever increasing intolerance of disagreement. This is seen in every branch of Christianity. It's most obvious among Protestants, where a church will split when a member of the worship band switches from acoustic to electric guitar or the church changes insurance companies. However, it affects the Catholic and Orthodox as well. In both cases you can find examples of people, sometimes influential people, holding views that would centuries later be considered incompatible with the Faith.

IMHO, if true ecumenical change is ever going to happen, it will come about not by convincing everyone to follow one interpretation or path. It will happen when people realize that we don't have all the answers and learn to live and associate with people that disagree with us. Given the way things are going in our society here and worldwide, I'm not holding my breath.

Quote:

---

However, it affects the Catholic and Orthodox as well. In both cases you can find examples of people, sometimes influential people, holding views that would centuries later be considered incompatible with the Faith.

---

A heretic can't be a heretic post-facto. St Photios illustrates this perfectly in his writings about the filioque.A heresy is only one unto schism, a person who chooses their own teaching to that of the Church. That's what the word heresy means, it's a choice.

I'm listening to this thing. I really like him and his writing, but I think he's a bit tricky at times with what he says. For example, he says there's no unanimous view on most things, and therefore no consensus - that's a bit much. Consensus doesn't mean unanimous. Consensus means general agreement, like-mindedness. He's basically saying any dissent is evidence that consensus doesn't exist, but that's an impossible standard to meet. Any example of dissent is not license for any dissent, though.

But his approach to this is so rational - his example for St Justin's expression of how Christ preexists is such a loaded way to look at something. We have people separated by centuries, by language, and philosophical tradition - trying to describe ineffable metaphysical realities. It's silliness to say, well St Justin clearly had a different view on Christ as the pre-Incarnate word. Again, no, that's not given by this evidence at all.

Like most things, I think the problem with most heretical statements or whatever has less to do with the ticky-tack bits of opinion and MUCH more with the conclusions they come from.

And, obviously, I completely reject his whole premise that the Church that preserved the writing of the fathers doesn't really understand or know what they said. It's completely ridiculous and utterly loaded. The idea that the Church that struggles and endeavors to align themselves with the writings of the fathers, who at every turn seeks to support rationalize the faith by the rule of "don't move the boundary stone" is less capable of using the fathers objectively than people who came to them in a polemical environment, with novel doctrines and preconcieved notions, and in some cases separated by centuries of isolation from them is an absolute joke.

Consider that Luther, Calvin, etc. had an extremely limited library of patristic material available to them versus what those in Constantinople would have had. The number of fathers the Reformers use is actually quite limited. The average person this day has loads more available to them - in their native language - than Luther did. And still much of the body of work has not been translated from Greek.

////

His whole talk about iconography is actually evidence against his stance, I think. The Orthodox Church actually doesn't justify their use of icons as an issue of patristic consensus. And really patristic consensus alone isn't, to my knowledge, a definitive way to approach any issue. We are well aware that there are separate traditions on this. It's a bit of a straw man. The Orthodox Church justifies the use of icons in worship two ways: one, theologically, because it is a reflection of our Christology and our affirmation that Christ really became man, and really revealed the Father in His humanity vs concealing His divinity with His humanity. And two, that after a century of blood where many, many Christians were martyred for their views on the holy icons, it was definitively answered in a conciliar fashion and subsequently accepted, ratified, endorsed, whatever you want to say, by the whole of Christendom.

///

Edit to say -- One other thought. It's really telling, too, how Luther and others in the Reformation spoke of the Fathers. What use is it to use patristics or reference them when at one time you use them as a citation and in the next breath reject them as wrong? For example, in the Formula of Concord St John Chrysostom and St Basil the Great are rejected for not having sound doctrine. Luther freely disagreed with Fathers based solely on his own interpretation of scripture - the same men he praised.

And so, much like everything else, the Reformation uses the fathers but in no way feels constrained by them. Sola scriptura becomes solo scriptura. It's all a big joke. Jordan Cooper can talk about this all he wants but his approach - and that of the entire protestant tradition - is basically completely undermined from the start.

Patriarch Jeremias' writings to the Lutherans should be a reason for Lutherans to pause. For starters, because not only did Rome not agree with them, but Constantinople disagreed as well. At what point does it start to become a point of doubt?

Patriarch Jeremias closed his second reply with the essence of the issue here.

Quote:

---

Finally, having understood Orthodoxy from the Holy Scriptures, come enter into it with all your souls, O wise and sagacious men, and put far away from you every irrational innovation, which the host of Ecumenical Teachers and of the Church has not accepted. For thus, both you and we will be worthy of blessings. You, as obeying your leaders and submitting to them [cf. Heb 13:17] and not "disputing about words which does no good" [2 Tim 2:14]. And we, as having spoken in the ears of those who have listened and sowing in the good soil [cf. Lk 8:8]. And since we have agreed on almost all of the main subjects, it is not necessary for you to interpret and understand some of the passages of the Scripture in any other way than that in which the luminaries of the Church and Ecumenical Teachers have interpreted. They themselves interpreted Scripture according to Christ our God, who is truth itself. And we, that is, our Church, keep these truths and uphold them. For nothing else is the cause of dissension than this and only this, which when you correct it, we will be, with the grace of God, in agreement; and we will become one in the Faith, the glory of God. For having researched diligently some of the passages of Holy Scripture, which you referred to in your first and second letters which you sent to us, we saw clearly that you had misinterpreted them, perhaps in following your new teachers. For this reason we again entreat you to understand the passages as the Ecumenical Teachers of the Church have interpreted them and which interpretations the seven ecumenical synods and the other regional ones have ratified. For as we have already said, it is not necessary to rise up and remove everlasting boundaries which the Fathers have established, so that we will not violate the definition which was mentioned at the beginning of the Sixth Synod and be subject to penalties.

---

And the third letter says..

Quote:

---

For this reason we had purposed to remain absolutely silent in response to your replies and give no answer to you. For you have quite plainly altered Holy Scripture as well as the interpretation of the above-mentioned holy men according to your own will...However, since by silence it might appear that we agree with you and that perhaps you correctly hold and understand these matters, we run the risk of having it thought that Holy Scripture and these holy men [Fathers] agree with you on this subject. By defending them we reiterate these matters again, although we have been well informed by your letters that you will never be able to agree with us or rather, we should say, with the truth...
...
Indeed, he [Chrysostom] and the holy man after him, being full of the Holy Spirit who performed supernatural miracles while they were living and after they died, interpreted [the Holy Scriptures] as they did; and they received such traditions, and they handed them down successively and gave them to us as indispensable and pious [sacraments]. Some of these even Old Rome also keeps and acquiesces with us. From whence have you reckoned better than Old and New Rome? Indeed, have you forsaken the interpretations of the true theologians and considered your own as more preferable?

---

and ends..

Quote:

---

Therefore, we request that from henceforth you do not cause us more grief, nor write to us on the same subject if you should wish to treat these luminaries and theologians of the Church in a different manner. You honor and exalt them in words, but you reject them in deeds. For you try to prove our weapons which are their holy and divine discourses as unsuitable. And it is with these documents that we would have to write and contradict you.

---

In other words, this very point is the ONLY point of disagreement between the Lutherans, Rome, and Orthodoxy, and the use of the fathers is the only way to settle the matter. Since Lutherans are unwilling to move from their stance, there will be no reconciliation on these issues. This is the status quo since 1581.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

However, it affects the Catholic and Orthodox as well. In both cases you can find examples of people, sometimes influential people, holding views that would centuries later be considered incompatible with the Faith.

---

A heretic can't be a heretic post-facto. St Photios illustrates this perfectly in his writings about the filioque.A heresy is only one unto schism, a person who chooses their own teaching to that of the Church. That's what the word heresy means, it's a choice.

---

I don't disagree. But the idea that the Church felt the need to make the distinction pretty much proves my point. IE, it was acceptable for this or that Father to hold this view in the 200s, because the Church hadn't definitive condemned that view yet. But if you hold the same view in 500 you're a heretic. So the Church is less "tolerant of ideological diversity" (to use current lingo) as time goes on

Quote:

---

I don't disagree. But the idea that the Church felt the need to make the distinction pretty much proves my point. IE, it was acceptable for this or that Father to hold this view in the 200s, because the Church hadn't definitive condemned that view yet. But if you hold the same view in 500 you're a heretic. So the Church is less "tolerant of ideological diversity" (to use current lingo) as time goes on

---

I don't want to belabor it because I know it's nuance, but I don't think this is quite so.

The hypothetical idea or view was never acceptable. The Faith is what it is, and does not change. The difference is that it was not rigorously defined, and without that rigorous definition for a person to dissent or assent, we don't really know whether they agreed or not. The language of homoousios was solidified at Nicaea, but that doesn't mean that people who used other language prior to that didn't have the exact same experience in Christ, and the same Faith.

Again, a diversity of language used to describe an ineffable, metaphyiscal reality does not necessarily imply a diversity of understanding of that reality. However, once the church more or less agrees and defines acceptable ways to describe this reality, rejection of that definition becomes a problem.

The Church's tolerance of ideological diversity is unchanged; there is only one Faith. What changes is the tolerance of expression or language used to describe it.

One thing I do completely agree with Cooper on this topic is that you can't take a quote in some random pastoral letter a father wrote and say "yup here are clearly his thoughts on this." He may or may not have been paying particular attention. People contradict themselves all the time. That's why the polemics are useful from a doctrinal perspective, because we have to think in those writings you've got some pretty carefully worded statements.

What do you do for a living? You're typing faster than I can keep up!

I type fast, sign of a wasted youth playing online games. Spent my lunch break at my desk typing most of that up.

It might be fun to do a monthly or biweekly "get to know your neighbor AMA" + podcast thread. Posters sign up to find a podcast (hour or less), post their notes and we respond accordingly.

I liked reading y'alls notes and takeaways from the same thing I listened to. Plus, my book list is too long to add to. I'm still reading my Christmas book, plus I'm about to reread a series from my youth.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Plus, my book list is too long to add to. I'm still reading my Christmas book, plus I'm about to reread a series from my youth.

---

This is why I prefer audio most of the time. Too many things to read.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I type fast, sign of a wasted youth playing online games. Spent my lunch break at my desk typing most of that up.

---

A lunch break??

Quote:

---

Again, a diversity of language used to describe an ineffable, metaphyiscal reality does not necessarily imply a diversity of understanding of that reality. However, once the church more or less agrees and defines acceptable ways to describe this reality, rejection of that definition becomes a problem.

The Church's tolerance of ideological diversity is unchanged; there is only one Faith. What changes is the tolerance of expression or language used to describe it.

---

I'll only say one more thing on this, because I'm not trying to hijack the thread any further. I get your perspective and how that makes sense to you, but when it comes to something like Subordinationism it defies credulity (to me at least) to say everyone always had the same belief and was just using different language.

Right - I think some people definitely did not have the same understanding. There are people today who are churchmen in good standing who probably would not be able to correctly express the doctrine. But that doesn't make them heretics. If today, they spoke in error and their bishop said, yeah...that's not right... and they refused to change to the point of schism, that makes them a heretic.

I think we absolutely have to make a distinction between rational and divine knowledge about this stuff. Some of what the fathers wrote was intellectual, and some divinely inspired. The Church has done the heavy lifting of saying, yep, this is good and trustworthy and this isn't (which is why we call St Justin a saint, and Tertullian not a saint). But even then they are holy fathers, not Holy Spirits.

So we look to consensus and conciliar teaching as well as the formula "everywhere, always, by all". As St Vincent wrote - "...Universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."

Even practically speaking I don't know what else you can do.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

The writings that address sola fide do so indirectly because the wiriters were addressing different challenges to the church. The nature of salvation by grace was tangential to the topics that were prevalent at the time (e.g., Gnosticism). That's more a paraphrase than a comment; I just found it really interesting.

My take-away: Ultimately, the point is that we as Christians disagree about some pretty big ideas today, but the earliest theologians did, too. Intellect is a gift from God, and it glorifies the Father when we use that gift to contemplate his nature, but our disagreements should be friendly. We are talking about some really smart guys here, but I think it's worth remembering that Jesus chose fishermen and tax collectors to follow him. If some blue collar guys and municipal bureaucrats were faithful disciples, it's okay for us to scratch our heads at some of these deep issues.

---

To your first point - I don't think this is entirely accurate. There is a massive amount of material that we call the writings of the fathers. Patristics covers a massive library, everything from Church History, catechetical works, scriptural commentary and homilies, letters (both pastoral and friendly), doctrinal statements or instructions, to polemics. Only polemics themselves directly address specific heresies and would fall under that first category.

It isn't as if the writings of the early church of a pastoral nature are devoid of commentary on soteriology. They may not talk about a doctrine of justification by faith, but that by no means indicates that there's nothing there to be learned.

However, when the issue was raised - particularly by the Lutherans to Patriarch Jeremias - it was answered negatively that in the terms presented by the Lutheran factions. Like anything else, a formal answer or polemic commentary on a doctrine can't exist until it is answering a theologoumenon, an opinion or thought about God. But that doesn't mean that the faith is silent on that topic. The Faith was that Jesus Christ was God before the formalized doctrine of homoousios was expressed at Nicaea. Similarly, the Faith passed on by the disciples is fully sufficient to rationalize salvation.

The entire sola fide discussion is one between Rome and the west. The east largely rejects the premise on both sides. And so, it is extremely risky to go read the Fathers who lived centuries before and attempt to shoehorn them into positions on either side of an issue of in some cases technical theology that their language can't really support.

That isn't to say the fathers didn't or wouldn't have opinions on it. But the entire concept of forensic justification etc. is at best a new way to describe an old idea. At worst it is a total novelty to the faith.

I guess my point is, it extremely disingenuous to approach the writings of the fathers with the question: what do they think about sola fide? Better to say - what terms, thoughts, models, did the fathers use to describe the ineffable reality of salvation?

(((Edit: Ha, I just got to the part where he basically says this in the podcast.)))

The debates of the Reformation were between people who had a largely rational view of theology heavily influenced by the Scholastic tradition. The fathers don't commend on the debates between these parties, because they don't share this kind of language.

/////

And this frames the problem with the second point. I don't accept the idea that because there isn't a rationalized, dogmatic, doctrinal statement that they disagreed. A variance of language does not point to a variance in the faith! Not absent some kind of definitive agreement. In other words, there is dogmatic fact - the life of the Church, the actuality of the Faith. Then there is dogmatic expression, when the Church collectively defines the reality that already exists. Only then can we say, this is an authentic expression of the Faith, and disagreement on this puts you outside of the Faith.

Jesus chose fisherman and tax collectors to follow Him, yes - but this kind of knowledge is spiritual, and comes from a divine gift. Those who have it are enlightened; this isn't about reason or rational ability but humility, kenosis or emptying, and divine illumination. The authentic expression of the faith isn't an anti-intellectual one, but one that humbles the intellectuals - as the scribes responded, "aren't these ordinary and unschooled men?"

None of this should be used as a pretense for, or an excuse to accept, divisions, heresy, and schism.

---

I'm letting the first point go because (1) it was a paraphrase of something that you hadn't listened to yet and (2) I could have easily misrepresented something while I was slicing garlic.

Regarding the second point (and please forgive the brevity that comes with typing on a phone), I do not agree that a variance in understanding necessarily means a variance in faith. Rather, I think it indicates a variance in explaining how that same faith works. I really think that's okay.

Perhaps your definition of "heresy" is somewhat broader than mine, but I don't think I have gone anywhere near endorsing an acceptance thereof.

Quote:

---

Regarding the second point (and please forgive the brevity that comes with typing on a phone), I do not agree that a variance in understanding necessarily means a variance in faith. Rather, I think it indicates a variance in explaining how that same faith works. I really think that's okay.

---

Right, maybe I wasn't clear but I agree with your statement. Post facto, especially. And doubly for people separated by language and centuries of philosophic tradition. There's definitely a spectrum though, and at some point a change in understanding will signal a change in faith. If a person said we're saved by blue bunnies then they're not a Christian.

Quote:

---

Perhaps your definition of "heresy" is somewhat broader than mine, but I don't think I have gone anywhere near endorsing an acceptance thereof.

---

heresy is defined by schism over a theological position. It's not (merely) being wrong or disagreeing. Where schisms persist, heresy exists. And St Paul says that is to show ultimately who is right and who is wrong. So, I suppose, we judge the schism by the fruit.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I have not read a ton of Chemnitz. If you were curious about something you could get me for my upcoming birthday, I would love that set


I would love to hear your thoughts on this episode. I'm hoping he makes it a series.

---

I typed up my thoughts on this last night, but apparently didn't hit Post. So this will be a little shorter.

First, I may know someone who is almost through the first book (it's a massive 600+ page book that takes a while to really read and digest. I've got about 13 pages of notes taken on Church Father quotes and thoughts from it. I haven't ready any Gerhard yet, but Chemnitz goes to great lengths to quote as many Fathers as possible to make sure it's clear where our traditions come from. It's a great read. If your in Houston still I can get it to you when I finish.

On the podcast itself (and I'm going from memory), I do think Jordan goes a bit too far on tangents at times. I think he would have been better to do an episode on the background first, and then dove into Sola Fide afterwards so that he could stay focused. It's a common issue for him.

What I think he does a great job of is showing that there really is rarely a consensus during any time period. The "consensus" comes afterward when groups create the "consensus" to fit what they believe is correct. He's been consistent on this in the past podcasts when he says you can find Lutheranism, Orthodox and Catholicism all separately in the Fathers.

One provocative statement he makes is around the development of theology and understanding. I think even in that he needs to be very careful in how he describes it. We know he's Lutheran and know he means that we should develop our understanding in connection with the Scriptures and Patristic Tradition, but he needs to be careful that he's clear. I see it as part of other Lutheran discussions that the individual layperson does not always understand the value of the Fathers and the influence they had on Lutheranism. Luther spends a lot of time making sure he's not reinventing. He's reforming.

When I get home, I'll see if there's anything else I wrote last night that I didn't write today.

Quote:

---

What I think he does a great job of is showing that there really is rarely a consensus during any time period. The "consensus" comes afterward when groups create the "consensus" to fit what they believe is correct. He's been consistent on this in the past podcasts when he says you can find Lutheranism, Orthodox and Catholicism all separately in the Fathers.

---

He doesn't really say that, directly. If I could take a stab, he says there's not topical unanimity of language in the absence of heretical pressure. To expand, the point is that when they're not writing polemics, their language is much more loose on any particular topic because they're not being precise or technical about that topic.

I agree with him very much on this. And that quote mining can be a bunch of crap. He's perfectly right that the Romans do it a ton on the papacy, and no doubt there are some Orthodox who quote mine to support things like the use of Holy Icons. That's not good, its disingenuous, and we shouldn't do it.

What I do not agree with, though, is his conclusion from this. He seems to think that because there wasn't unanimity of language there is no consensus of faith on these topics. I don't agree with that at all. If we use that same standard on the Christological heresies, we're left saying that there was no unanimity that Christ was begotten not made and one essence with the Father until Nicaea. Is that true? Of course not. The faith didn't change at Nicaea, it was just technically defined.

Under this kind of approach we can take any historical writing we like and as long as we read it in the context of the writing (as in, we're not quote mining), we can use it to support our interpretation of scripture.

This has two problems. One - the Church has already self-selected among historical writings. So we're already tainting the pool, injecting some bias. The writings of the saints were preserved. There are many, many writings that were not preserved, presumably by pious and non-heretical men. And there were writings that were preserved but were not considered illumined (i.e., we don't call them a saint). But we have then excluded the vast majority of theological opinions, pastoral writings, etc. from the discussion. What if the very argument he's looking for support there has already been excluded? There's a huge problem with that. The selection of the fathers already presumes a certain interpretation by way of the very reason they were preserved in the first place. (You'll note, of course, this applies equally to the canon of Holy Scripture).

So he's happy to take this as a kind of validation of their authority. But he then feels unconstrained both by their authority, and by the same authority that authorized the writings in the first place! He accepts that St John Chrysostom is a father, but where he disagrees with either St John or the Church's use of St John's writings, he just ignores them. That's a bit of an illogical approach, don't you think? Why bother using the fathers at all?

As for the last bit, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to say "you can find Lutheranism, Orthodox and Catholicism all separately in the Fathers". Lutheranism didn't exist, so how could you find it? Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism didn't exist per se, because the very schism and doctrinal shift which allow us to say this is Orthodoxy and that is Roman Catholicism hadn't happened. So that sentence is not precise enough to be true.

The sentence could be reworded as "you can find support in the fathers about _________ that support Lutheranism, Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholic interpretations of scripture on that topic" which of course is true. But that wouldn't surprise anyone or really be all that interesting to say. It's much more shocking to say the first thing.

The bigger issue, perhaps, with saying "you can find Lutheranism, Orthodox and Catholicism in the Fathers" is a sort of sideways post-Modernism denial that any one faith has all the truth. I know he wouldn't let me box him in if we were having a discussion, and I'm fairly sure he doesn't believe this, but the sentence as you wrote it is dangerous because it very easily leads to the conclusion that because you can find these things in the fathers, no one is right. And of course you see this in Voltaire, "a long dispute means that both parties are wrong." This becomes a kind of fodder for the worst kind of ecumenism - that there is no such thing as small-o orthodoxy, that there is no single Faith, that it's all up to the vagaries of historical interpretation and political shifts. I don't think he believes it, but he has to sort of dance around the issue in order to use the fathers, enjoy their authoritative status by way of the institutional authority of the pre-schism Catholic church, and later the Roman and Orthodox church, but also be free to deny the infallibility of those institutions. It is illogical, again.

Quote:

---

The bigger issue, perhaps, with saying "you can find Lutheranism, Orthodox and Catholicism in the Fathers" is a sort of sideways post-Modernism denial that any one faith has all the truth.

---

I read that differently due to my biases, so my aplogies if that's not the intention. In my mind a Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and even a Messianic would be able to find Christian churches in the 2nd and 3rd century that would feel familiar and be in full communion with the other churches of the era. Whether that means style of worship, doctrine, or what have you.

IMHO, the Christian faith is not more varied now than it was then, but the difference is that we have become less tolerance of disagreement as time has gone on. The range of orthodox beliefs and practices for any specific part of Christianity has become more narrow and exclusive.

I would need you to show your work. My experience on that is actually the opposite. Christianity began from a homogenous single source. It should become less so over time, not more.

Quote:

---

What I do not agree with, though, is his conclusion from this. He seems to think that because there wasn't unanimity of language there is no consensus of faith on these topics. I don't agree with that at all. If we use that same standard on the Christological heresies, we're left saying that there was no unanimity that Christ was begotten not made and one essence with the Father until Nicaea. Is that true? Of course not. The faith didn't change at Nicaea, it was just technically defined.

---

I think you are drawing this conclusion to be a contrarian. Jordan is clearly not arguing that without consensus there's no clear doctrine on the faith. He wouldn't want to make that statement because he would have trouble defending Lutheran positions for the same reason you point out.

Further, I don't think he's attempting to connect the dots necessarily as you are. He's not saying that because there's no consensus, there's no true faith. What he's doing is answering the claim by Catholicism and the Orthodox that they alone are true fullness of faith. And that because Lutherans don't try to force fit a consensus, we should be willing to acknowledge the diversity in thought on many different concepts.

Quote:

---

This has two problems. One - the Church has already self-selected among historical writings. So we're already tainting the pool, injecting some bias. The writings of the saints were preserved. There are many, many writings that were not preserved, presumably by pious and non-heretical men. And there were writings that were preserved but were not considered illumined (i.e., we don't call them a saint). But we have then excluded the vast majority of theological opinions, pastoral writings, etc. from the discussion. What if the very argument he's looking for support there has already been excluded? There's a huge problem with that. The selection of the fathers already presumes a certain interpretation by way of the very reason they were preserved in the first place. (You'll note, of course, this applies equally to the canon of Holy Scripture).

---

Again, you're being contrarian.

If you want to take this extreme, the Orthodox and Catholics would have the same issue. What you will do is claim Apostolic Tradition which is to say you believe that God is guiding belief so that the "Gates of Hell will not prevail."

The argument is really no different for Jordan and in fact it's the exact thing that Martin Chemnitz does, which Jordan references and talks about.

Quote:

---

So he's happy to take this as a kind of validation of their authority. But he then feels unconstrained both by their authority, and by the same authority that authorized the writings in the first place! He accepts that St John Chrysostom is a father, but where he disagrees with either St John or the Church's use of St John's writings, he just ignores them. That's a bit of an illogical approach, don't you think? Why bother using the fathers at all?

---

No and you're doing exactly what he said we shouldn't do. Try and pull statements out of context to force fit with what you want him to say. The rest follows that logic and not something to respond to.

Quote:

---

The bigger issue, perhaps, with saying "you can find Lutheranism, Orthodox and Catholicism in the Fathers" is a sort of sideways post-Modernism denial that any one faith has all the truth. I know he wouldn't let me box him in if we were having a discussion, and I'm fairly sure he doesn't believe this, but the sentence as you wrote it is dangerous because it very easily leads to the conclusion that because you can find these things in the fathers, no one is right.

---

I think you're being a bit dramatic, but clearly you do hit on several key questions.

What does it mean to have "all the truth?" This is an argument both Catholics and Orthodox claim and Jordan does a good job showing that it's a logical contradiction for both to claim it yet have varying beliefs.

What would better to say in my opinion is what do Scriptures and Jesus want us to hold as truth or faith vs what are "nice to haves?" I know you will hate this, but it's truly a better question.

Scriptures clearly teach things about what Jesus came and what he/others taught. For Lutherans, we start with the clear teachings and filter that to everything else.

So when something when the less clear items or things outside of Scripture come up, we can certainly debate them and have an opinion on them, but we aren't going to be worried about the impact of it on our Faith. It's just a nice to have.

Quote:

---

He's not saying that because there's no consensus, there's no true faith. What he's doing is answering the claim by Catholicism and the Orthodox that they alone are true fullness of faith. And that because Lutherans don't try to force fit a consensus, we should be willing to acknowledge the diversity in thought on many different concepts.

---

I didn't suggest that. I said no consensus of faith on certain topics. That's not the same thing as saying there's no true faith.

Essentially he's saying that a lack of unanimity of language is license for breadth in interpretation, on a topic by topic basis. I'm saying I don't think that's necessarily true, because the fathers in and of themselves do not circumscribe Holy Tradition.

As for the "don't try to force fit a consensus," if anything Lutherans try to prove there isn't a consensus as a license for their interpretation of scripture. In fact I might suggest that it's a kind of imperative for them to say that there isn't a consensus. Its that or jettison the fathers altogether. It's the only way they get to use them authoritatively.

Quote:

---

If you want to take this extreme, the Orthodox and Catholics would have the same issue. What you will do is claim Apostolic Tradition which is to say you believe that God is guiding belief so that the "Gates of Hell will not prevail." The argument is really no different for Jordan and in fact it's the exact thing that Martin Chemnitz does, which Jordan references and talks about.

---

I don't know what this means. Take what extreme?

Quote:

---

No and you're doing exactly what he said we shouldn't do. Try and pull statements out of context to force fit with what you want him to say. The rest follows that logic and not something to respond to.

---

Forgive me, what am I taking out of context?

Quote:

---

What does it mean to have "all the truth?" This is an argument both Catholics and Orthodox claim and Jordan does a good job showing that it's a logical contradiction for both to claim it yet have varying beliefs.

---

To have all the truth? The promises of Christ in the scripture (John 16:13). This means that the Holy Spirit will guide and lead the Apostles, and by extension the Church, into the truth. And not some, but all. As St Jude says, the faith handed down once for all to the saints. Nothing lacking, nothing erroneous. Nothing to be discovered, nothing missing.

It is not a logical contradiction that multiple parties claim to have the fullness of truth. It just means that where there is disagreement, only one can be right. Don't Lutherans claim to have fullness of truth? I mean, I hope you do. Else why go?

Quote:

---

What would better to say in my opinion is what do Scriptures and Jesus want us to hold as truth or faith vs what are "nice to haves?" I know you will hate this, but it's truly a better question.

Scriptures clearly teach things about what Jesus came and what he/others taught. For Lutherans, we start with the clear teachings and filter that to everything else.

So when something when the less clear items or things outside of Scripture come up, we can certainly debate them and have an opinion on them, but we aren't going to be worried about the impact of it on our Faith. It's just a nice to have.

---

Sure, it's a great question. And it's been answered - for centuries - by the praxis of the Church. The tradition of the Church includes both written and verbal commentary on the scripture and a living, practical application. This is everything from prayers, liturgical hymns and services, the church calendar, feasts and fasts, sayings and creeds. Why suddenly do we need to start reducing this 1500 years later? Who decides what is necessary and what is superfluous?

It's like inherent in protestantism is a desire to strive wherever possible to strip the faith down to it's essentials, and cut everything else out. Why? Why would you make a rank of important teachings? Especially when they don't contradict each other? You don't treat scripture like this - you don't say, well, we don't really use 1 Kings much, so let's just say it's a "nice to have". We don't particularly love St James' epistle, so let's say that's not essential too. That's not how this works.

///////

But we're getting off topic here. This isn't about the breadth of scripture or even about what we do and do not consider of prime importance. This is about a specific topic - Sola Fide - and how we use the fathers within the confines of this topic opens up to a broader question of authority.

Maybe this will clarify my point. True or false - where a Church Father's interpretation of scripture is different than Lutheran doctrine, Lutherans will say that the church father is wrong. Clearly, this is true, I think?

So who has authority - Lutheran councils and conciliar documents, or church fathers? Surely Lutheran councils, on this basis. That means, I think, that the fathers rank below the Lutheran councils when determining how to interpret scripture.

Look, everyone in Christianity argues by appeal to authority. No one in mainline Christianity suggests they have a special license or particular personal revelation, or personal authority to interpret scripture. The authority structure we're talking about now is the writings of the fathers. But this is skipping a step, because we first have to ask - why are these writings relevant anyway? Why do we care what these people wrote?

The unavoidable answer to this is we care about these men only because the Church has said - these writings are good and useful, these writings are illumined, these writings are witnesses to the Faith. Again, this is exactly the same means and reasoning behind Holy Scripture.

You can't accept the outcome or product of Holy Tradition while also rejecting the authority of Holy Tradition to produce that outcome. You can't say the writings of the father are authoritative while also claiming authority to disagree with them. We all clearly see - on a given passage of scripture if there is a difference between a church father's interpretation and the Lutheran doctrine, Lutherans say the father is wrong and their doctrine is right. That puts Lutheran doctrine above the writings of the fathers in the Lutheran hierarchy of authority. So -- why does Lutheranism feel the need to appeal to the fathers, again?

Quote:

---

As for the "don't try to force fit a consensus," if anything Lutherans try to prove there isn't a consensus as a license for their interpretation of scripture. In fact I might suggest that it's a kind of imperative for them to say that there isn't a consensus. Its that or jettison the fathers altogether. It's the only way they get to use them authoritatively.

---

Well, as Jordan points out, it is true that there is not a consensus. He's correct there.

He's also correct that Catholics and Orthodox force fit to justify their beliefs.

It is also probably a bit reactionary on a Lutheran's part to continue to point out that the Orthodox and Catholics do not have ownership of the Father's and that they said quite a bit more than the Orthodox and Catholics would have you believe. BTW, Jordan clearly makes this point as well.

Quote:

---

I don't know what this means. Take what extreme?

---

If you want to argue that the because not all writings are preserved, maybe there are writings that are missing that would prove to be correct. It's just isn't a good argument for you to make.

Quote:

---

Forgive me, what am I taking out of context?

---

You seem to be implying that because we view people as Church Fathers (ala St. Chrysostom), but somehow believe that if we do not view all his thoughts as infallible that we are somehow being illogical. It's just another bad argument.

And of course the Orthodox do the exact same thing. You'll just claim that thought wasn't part of Apostolic Tradition.

Quote:

---

the Apostles, and by extension the Church, into the truth. And not some, but all. As St Jude says, the faith handed down once for all to the saints. Nothing lacking, nothing erroneous. Nothing to be discovered, nothing missing.

It is not a logical contradiction that multiple parties claim to have the fullness of truth. It just means that where there is disagreement, only one can be right. Don't Lutherans claim to have fullness of truth? I mean, I hope you do. Else why go?

---

And you'll find that Lutheran's don't overreach Scriptures. I think you'd find that in most instances, there's pretty decent agreement when we stick to Scriptures. Should of course make complete sense because Luther was a reformer, not a revolutionary.

Quote:

---

Maybe this will clarify my point. True or false - where a Church Father's interpretation of scripture is different than Lutheran doctrine, Lutherans will say that the church father is wrong. Clearly, this is true, I think?

---

Too abstract to comment on.

Quote:

---

So who has authority - Lutheran councils and conciliar documents, or church fathers? Surely Lutheran councils, on this basis. That means, I think, that the fathers rank below the Lutheran councils when determining how to interpret scripture.

---

What's a "Lutheran Council?

Lutheran's have the "Book of Concord." Those are our confessions.

However, these confessions like the Fathers are not infallible. We hold that we believe they are correct because they are in Scriptures.

Quote:

---

ou can't accept the outcome or product of Holy Tradition while also rejecting the authority of Holy Tradition to produce that outcome. You can't say the writings of the father are authoritative while also claiming authority to disagree with them. We all clearly see - on a given passage of scripture if there is a difference between a church father's interpretation and the Lutheran doctrine, Lutherans say the father is wrong and their doctrine is right. That puts Lutheran doctrine above the writings of the fathers in the Lutheran hierarchy of authority. So -- why does Lutheranism feel the need to appeal to the fathers, again?

---

No idea what you are trying to claim here.

But why did people like Luther and Chemnitz go to great lengths to quote the fathers? That is the easiest question of all. When Lutheran's were attempting to reform the Western Church, they relied on the Father's to show that Rome was off course.

Quote:

---

Well, as Jordan points out, it is true that there is not a consensus. He's correct there. He's also correct that Catholics and Orthodox force fit to justify their beliefs. It is also probably a bit reactionary on a Lutheran's part to continue to point out that the Orthodox and Catholics do not have ownership of the Father's and that they said quite a bit more than the Orthodox and Catholics would have you believe. BTW, Jordan clearly makes this point as well.

---

Haha, that's not how discussions work. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. I think there is a broad consensus, and if we disagree on that, we disagree. However, it isn't as if this is a new claim. The concept of patristic consensus is witnessed to way back in history, everything from St Vincent of Lerins to explicit references in the ecumenical councils.

For example, the acts of the council of Ephesis said "We have been taught to hold these things by the holy Apostles and Evangelists, and all the God-inspired Scriptures, and in the true confessions of the blessed Fathers."

Or from the acts of Chalcedon - "For the fathers taught, and in their writings are preserved, what things were set forth by them, and further than this we can say nothing...Let the sayings of the Fathers remain fast...Not by way of addition but for the sake of certainty, as we have received from the beginning from the divine Scriptures and from the tradition of the holy fathers, we will speak briefly, adding nothing whatever to the Faith set forth by the holy Fathers in Nice.

Or how Constantinople II in 553 framed their arguments - "We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith...we exhort you further to follow in this matter the doctrine of the holy Fathers... And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers...And since we had learned from these that nothing written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had been proved to agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers...kindling for ourselves the light of knowledge from the holy Scriptures, and the doctrine of the Fathers..."

So the idea that the Fathers are authoritative is old. It is the bedrock of Apostolic Tradition, and it has been the arbiter of every heresy and orthodox definition made in Christendom.

I don't think you're understanding Cooper's point though. You're going too far. It isn't that there isn't orthodoxy there, it's that when you get outside of the definitive statements of the fathers, there is quite a bit of breadth of language on certain topics. The point here is we can't say "the fathers believed _____ about sola fide" which is perfectly true. But that doesn't witness in any way against the consensus of the fathers.

Quote:

---

If you want to argue that the because not all writings are preserved, maybe there are writings that are missing that would prove to be correct. It's just isn't a good argument for you to make.

---

You've missed the point. The writings that were preserved we done so intentionally. The point is that the Church has said - actively - these are the writings we take as authoritative. Just like the Church said these are the scriptures we accept as canonical.

Quote:

---

You seem to be implying that because we view people as Church Fathers (ala St. Chrysostom), but somehow believe that if we do not view all his thoughts as infallible that we are somehow being illogical. It's just another bad argument.

---

No, I'm saying the Lutheran hierarchy of authority places Lutheran doctrine above the Fathers.

Quote:

---

And you'll find that Lutheran's don't overreach Scriptures. I think you'd find that in most instances, there's pretty decent agreement when we stick to Scriptures. Should of course make complete sense because Luther was a reformer, not a revolutionary.

---

No one says they overreach the scripture, and every church says their doctrines are scriptural. The disagreement is on the interpretation, and on the authority to do so.

Quote:

---

Too abstract to comment on.

---

HA! Come on, it isn't abstract at all! I already linked you a point where in the Book of Concord this exact thing happened. This isn't a hypothetical. "As to the expressions of Chrysostom and Basil...it is manifest from the explanation heretofore presented that they are not in harmony with the form of sound doctrine, but contrary to it, and therefore ought to be avoided when we speak of conversion to God."

Quote:

---

What's a "Lutheran Council? Lutheran's have the "Book of Concord." Those are our confessions. However, these confessions like the Fathers are not infallible. We hold that we believe they are correct because they are in Scriptures.

---

A diet is a body who comes together to deliberate and discuss. In other words, a council. So the Diet of Augsburg, which produced the Augsburg confessions, was a council (it was an imperial council that dealt with more than the religious material, but it was a council). The Formula of Concord was made by a group of theologians and churchmen over the course of a year. The Book of Concord is a collection of confessions compiled by a council, and the individual contents that came from various sources, some of which were other councils.

Again, every Church believes their doctrine is scriptural. The disagreement is in the interpretation and application of the scriptures.

Quote:

---

No idea what you are trying to claim here.

But why did people like Luther and Chemnitz go to great lengths to quote the fathers? That is the easiest question of all. When Lutheran's were attempting to reform the Western Church, they relied on the Father's to show that Rome was off course.

---

Yeah, but then they also relied on themselves to show where the church Fathers were off course. For thee but not for me.

Kinda like, the fathers are authoritative where they agree with us and not authoritative where they don't. Convenient.

Quote:

---

Haha, that's not how discussions work. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. I think there is a broad consensus, and if we disagree on that, we disagree. However, it isn't as if this is a new claim. The concept of patristic consensus is witnessed to way back in history, everything from St Vincent of Lerins to explicit references in the ecumenical councils.

---

The episode spent a lot of time talking through items that would be contrary to what you would claim. I guess you can call that consensus if you want.

Quote:

---

So the idea that the Fathers are authoritative is old. It is the bedrock of Apostolic Tradition, and it has been the arbiter of every heresy and orthodox definition made in Christendom.

---

Authoritative yes. Infallible no.

And arbiter is a very strong word when we have two groups simultaneously claiming their "Apostolic Tradition" is correct. At best you held Ecumenical Councils to decide, but we haven't seen one (at least in your view) for 1200 years.

Quote:

---

You've missed the point. The writings that were preserved we done so intentionally. The point is that the Church has said - actively - these are the writings we take as authoritative. Just like the Church said these are the scriptures we accept as canonical.

---

Yes. But you made the argument that:
" There are many, many writings that were not preserved, presumably by pious and non-heretical men. And there were writings that were preserved but were not considered illumined (i.e., we don't call them a saint). But we have then excluded the vast majority of theological opinions, pastoral writings, etc. from the discussion. What if the very argument he's looking for support there has already been excluded? There's a huge problem with that. The selection of the fathers already presumes a certain interpretation by way of the very reason they were preserved in the first place. (You'll note, of course, this applies equally to the canon of Holy Scripture)."

I'm simply saying that argument is illogical and against Scripture.

Quote:

---

No one says they overreach the scripture, and every church says their doctrines are scriptural. The disagreement is on the interpretation, and on the authority to do so.

---

The disagreement on authority existed well before Lutheranism. Hence why they went back to the sources.

Quote:

---

HA! Come on, it isn't abstract at all! I already linked you a point where in the Book of Concord this exact thing happened. This isn't a hypothetical. "As to the expressions of Chrysostom and Basil...it is manifest from the explanation heretofore presented that they are not in harmony with the form of sound doctrine, but contrary to it, and therefore ought to be avoided when we speak of conversion to God."

---

I'm sorry, but you didn't link me to anything. How was I supposed to know to go look at a prior post of yours (that was not a reply to anyone)?

I'm not sure what your point is still? Are you now claiming that it's incorrect to ever disagree with a Father? Or should we do what Jordan suggested and "let the Fathers be the Fathers?"

Quote:

---

A diet is a body who comes together to deliberate and discuss. In other words, a council. So the Diet of Augsburg, which produced the Augsburg confessions, was a council (it was an imperial council that dealt with more than the religious material, but it was a council). The Formula of Concord was made by a group of theologians and churchmen over the course of a year. The Book of Concord is a collection of confessions compiled by a council, and the individual contents that came from various sources, some of which were other councils.

Again, every Church believes their doctrine is scriptural. The disagreement is in the interpretation and application of the scriptures.

---

I'm sorry, but you are not right on your terminology. If you wanted to call it a trial, that would be closer to the truth. It certainly wasn't a "council"

The Lutheran's asked and wanted a real council. The "best" they ever got was the Council of Trent where, while they couldn't actually participate with, it at least let Chemnitz respond in a major way.

What they got was the Diet of Augsburg.

- Where Melanchthon presented the Augsburg Confession (the only copy was then taken from the Lutherans and not returned, presumably it's at the Vatican to this day).
- Rome read the Confutation, which the Lutheran's were not allowed to have a copy of. This document basically said "you're wrong."
- The emperor (who supposedly slept through everything) woke up long enough to tell the Lutheran's to stop it and then left.
- Oh and Luther could not attend because he was wanted dead or alive (but mostly dead).

Or what about the Diet of Worms where Luther was told to disavow everything he ever wrote or face death.

No none of that was a "Lutheran Council" nor are they considered as such by anyone.

Quote:

---

Yeah, but then they also relied on themselves to show where the church Fathers were off course. For thee but not for me.

Kinda like, the fathers are authoritative where they agree with us and not authoritative where they don't. Convenient.

---

No. That's your opinion.

I didn't realize you hold the Father's as infallible. Lutheran's don't.

As I said before, we hold that the Confessions (and Fathers) are right as long as they align with Scriptures. If and when there are deviations, we do not hold those as correct or relevant.

Quote:

---

Authoritative yes. Infallible no.

And arbiter is a very strong word when we have two groups simultaneously claiming their "Apostolic Tradition" is correct. At best you held Ecumenical Councils to decide, but we haven't seen one (at least in your view) for 1200 years.

---

Well sure. No one ever said infallible. It's difficult to discuss this because you keep trying to stretch things beyond their limits. I've never claimed the fathers were infallible, for example, or that they had doctrinal or topical unanimity. But they are authoritative in consensus.

As for "two groups claiming" - not really relevant to this is it? What interpretation or application does Rome and Orthodoxy disagree with based on the church fathers? The whole discussion here is about topical applicability. Cooper's point is that where the fathers are not writing specifically, we shouldn't attempt to ascribe technical theological opinions. Which I agree with.

I don't get the ecumenical councils. Lutherans kinda accept ecumenical councils, and they certainly accept their own local councils as authoritative. But even the councils in and themselves aren't infallible or authoritative. Its the sum whole of tradition, by the grace and guidance of the Spirit, which guides and leads the Church.

Quote:

---

Yes. But you made the argument that:...I'm simply saying that argument is illogical and against Scripture.

---

You've completely lost me. What is illogical? How is it against scripture???

Look, you accept that the canon of Holy Scripture is both complete and infallible, right? You don't accept the Gospel of Thomas or Mary Magdalene. They exist. But we reject them as spurious. We do that because the Church collectively has ratified the canon by use, for a very long time, with a lot of consistency.

This is exactly the same mechanism by which the fathers were selected, ratified, used. The mechanism, again -- not that the writings of the fathers are equal to scripture. But as safe, or authoritative, or useful commentaries, expositions, explanations of scripture, absolutely this is an active process of both inclusion of good writings and exclusion of bad.

There is a sample bias at work, then, for the person who would presume to use that which has been included intentionally for its doctrinal use could be used to undermine the doctrines it was used to develop.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what your point is still? Are you now claiming that it's incorrect to ever disagree with a Father? Or should we do what Jordan suggested and "let the Fathers be the Fathers?"

---

I'm saying if you're going to say "hey, our doctrine is sound because it is witnessed to in the fathers" it's pretty dang disingenuous to say a later "the fathers should be avoided on this topic because they are not in harmony with our doctrine". They're either useful or they're not; authoritative, or not.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, but you are not right on your terminology. If you wanted to call it a trial, that would be closer to the truth. It certainly wasn't a "council"

---

There's nothing wrong with my terminology. Do you know what an Imperial Diet was? It was a general assembly (not a legislative body) of elector princes, nobles, religious leaders, etc. that met regularly for nearly a thousand years in the Holy Roman Empire. They started in the 900s. The famous Diet of Worms had a council kinda like a trial, yeah. But the Imperial Diet was at Augsburg a dozen times between 1500 and 1600. There wasn't a single "Diet of Augsburg". The famous one was 1530. But the schism was only one of the topics that was to be discussed there. There's not a ton of difference between the the political and theological means and mechanisms of Nicaea and the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. Both called by emperors to address and clarify theological problems with political ramifications. Both produced confessional statements.

Call it a council, call it a diet, who cares. The point is that the Lutheran confessions were produced by or ratified through a "formal deliberative assembly" (diet) or "an advisory, deliberative, or legislative body of people formally constituted and meeting regularly" (council) or a group of theologians and churchmen. Not a single person.

The Formula of Concord was produced in conciliar fashion, as was the compilation Book of Concord. Just as Melanchthon "wrote" the Augsburg Confession, St Maximos the Confessor likely "wrote" the encyclical of the Lateran Council of 649.

Quote:

---

No. That's your opinion.

I didn't realize you hold the Father's as infallible. Lutheran's don't.

As I said before, we hold that the Confessions (and Fathers) are right as long as they align with Scriptures. If and when there are deviations, we do not hold those as correct or relevant.

---

It's not my opinion. Go read the book of concord! Go read Luther! Chemnitz and Luther had no qualms whatsoever correcting church fathers!

Luther said Pope Gregory the Dialogist produced nothing good with his teaching and that "genuine salt" was missing from him establishing faith in Christ. He said St Jerome does not know what the gospel is and does not understand what the law amounts to and that St Jerome frequently missed the sense of scripture in his commentaries. He wrote "Neither Jerome nor Cyprian nor Origen or any of them preached Christ."

Quote:

---

The doctrine of justification was not taught even by holy Church Fathers in a pure an unadulterated way. If we can nevertheless discover it in some of them, it is only because we know beforehand - and independently of them - that sinners are justified only through faith. At the beginning of his great lecture on Genesis Luther reports that because he knew of justification by faith from Scripture he also found it in Augustine, Hilary, Cyril and Ambrose, even if they did not zealously pursue it in practice and at time talked about it only inappropriately. "But I don't count that as an error on their part" is his conciliatory comment; "it suffices if they say the same thing on the subject; even if they scarcely express it appropriately, their testimony bears me out.

---

He said "What the Holy Spirit taught is one thing, what the Fathers taught is another..the Jews and Turks knew better than the Fathers."

(source - pp 609, 612, 615)

Chemnitz states that Augustine is correct almost all the time, but he did not speak correctly on justification. Chemnitz notes that John of Damascus lived during the decline of the church and the Moslem conquest, and so most of what he has written is worthless; but his Christology is valuable, and therefore Chemnitz quotes him. John Cassian is roundly condemned for his Pelagianism and is approvingly cited for his Christology. Jerome is praised by Chemnitz as an exegete and berated as a tactless and legalistic supporter of Mariolatry and monasticism. (cite)

It's not the scripture they conflict with. It's Lutheran interpretation of scripture. Again - as Jeremias wrote - they honor them in words but reject them in deeds.