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.