# Early Church Fathers and Predestination



## puritanpilgrim

I had a buddy of mine, who just out of the clear blue converted to Greek orthodox. As we were discussing his rational, he brought up the point: "None of the early church fathers taught predestination until Augustine, and he didn't know Greek." I came to my understanding by the incredible about of evidence and teaching on this subject in the Bible. But, is that true? I'm not very knowledgeable about the early church fathers, and I would even know where to start in looking this up. The easiest answer is, "I don't care, that is what the Bible says." I'm comfortable with that statement. However, I hoped someone else might have some greater insight on this subject.


----------



## BertMulder

Guess we don't normally classify Jesus and Paul as church fathers, but they did teach predestination...


----------



## Roldan

Also doctrine was in a progressive developing state, so to base ANY theological argument for or against any doctrine on the early church fathers and such is in my humble opinion extremely weak and irresponsible.


----------



## N. Eshelman

BertMulder said:


> Guess we don't normally classify Jesus and Paul as church fathers, but they did teach predestination...


----------



## DTK

puritanpilgrim said:


> I had a buddy of mine, who just out of the clear blue converted to Greek orthodox. As we were discussing his rational, he brought up the point: "None of the early church fathers taught predestination until Augustine, and he didn't know Greek." I came to my understanding by the incredible about of evidence and teaching on this subject in the Bible. But, is that true? I'm not very knowledgeable about the early church fathers, and I would even know where to start in looking this up. The easiest answer is, "I don't care, that is what the Bible says." I'm comfortable with that statement. However, I hoped someone else might have some greater insight on this subject.



*Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200):* This manner of speech may perhaps be plausible or persuasive to those who know not God, and who liken Him to needy human beings, and to those who cannot immediately and without assistance form anything, but require many instrumentalities to produce what they intend. But it will not be regarded as at all probable by those who know that God stands in need of nothing, and that He created and made all things by His Word, while He neither required angels to assist Him in the production of those things which are made, nor of any power greatly inferior to Himself, and ignorant of the Father, nor of any defect or ignorance, in order that he who should know Him might become man.8 But He Himself in Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, *predestinating all things*, formed them as He pleased, bestowing harmony on all things, and assigning them their own place, and the beginning of their creation. In this way He conferred on spiritual things a spiritual and invisible nature, on super-celestial things a celestial, on angels an angelical, on animals an animal, on beings that swim a nature suited to the water, and on those that live on the land one fitted for the land—on all, in short, a nature suitable to the character of the life assigned them—while He formed all things that were made by His Word that never wearies. _ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies_, Book 2:2:4.

*Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):* From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled.186 For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.
Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith—which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord—*those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous*. _ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata_, Book VII, Chapter XVII.

DTK


----------



## Ron

puritanpilgrim said:


> I had a buddy of mine, who just out of the clear blue converted to Greek orthodox. As we were discussing his rational, he brought up the point: "None of the early church fathers taught predestination until Augustine, and he didn't know Greek." I came to my understanding by the incredible about of evidence and teaching on this subject in the Bible. But, is that true? I'm not very knowledgeable about the early church fathers, and I would even know where to start in looking this up. The easiest answer is, "I don't care, that is what the Bible says." I'm comfortable with that statement. However, I hoped someone else might have some greater insight on this subject.



Your friend and you could very well be talking by each other. Of course all the fathers believed in "predestination", assuming of course they accepted Paul's letter to the Ephesians where he states: _"...in love: Having *predestinated* us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."_ 

Therefore, the question is not whether predestination was taught or believed but rather what they believed with respect to the _basis upon which_ God predestines all things that come to pass, with a particular emphasis on the predestination of souls unto life. 

Ron


----------



## Davidius

DTK said:


> *Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200):* This manner of speech may perhaps be plausible or persuasive to those who know not God, and who liken Him to needy human beings, and to those who cannot immediately and without assistance form anything, but require many instrumentalities to produce what they intend. But it will not be regarded as at all probable by those who know that God stands in need of nothing, and that He created and made all things by His Word, while He neither required angels to assist Him in the production of those things which are made, nor of any power greatly inferior to Himself, and ignorant of the Father, nor of any defect or ignorance, in order that he who should know Him might become man.8 But He Himself in Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, *predestinating all things*, formed them as He pleased, bestowing harmony on all things, and assigning them their own place, and the beginning of their creation. In this way He conferred on spiritual things a spiritual and invisible nature, on super-celestial things a celestial, on angels an angelical, on animals an animal, on beings that swim a nature suited to the water, and on those that live on the land one fitted for the land—on all, in short, a nature suitable to the character of the life assigned them—while He formed all things that were made by His Word that never wearies. _ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies_, Book 2:2:4.
> 
> *Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):* From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled.186 For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.
> Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith—which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord—*those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous*. _ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata_, Book VII, Chapter XVII.
> 
> DTK



It's important that we try to understand how authors are using words instead of merely looking for the words and bolding them, assuming that their author have the same intent in mind that we do when we use them. To not do so is to lose credibility in our argument. 

Irenaeus is obviously talking somewhat philosophically about the way God created the world, not about predestination as it relates to the eternal decree of the actions of free creatures, including the election of God's true people and their conversions. 

Clement, on the other hand, is talking about the visible church, lamenting that there are those who are seeking to divide it into many sects. If he were talking about a mystical, invisible idea, he wouldn't have to complain quite so much about the sects (as I see it), since we, with our definition of the true Church, can live with visibly divided sects. In that sense, he seems to be talking about predestination with respect to those who are in this one unified Church. On top of that, the last sentence even sounds like it could be used by a modern day Arminian who says that election is based off of God's foreknowledge of our choices.

As Ron said, the question we have to ask is whether the Fathers understood predestination as we do.


----------



## Roldan

Davidius said:


> DTK said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200):* This manner of speech may perhaps be plausible or persuasive to those who know not God, and who liken Him to needy human beings, and to those who cannot immediately and without assistance form anything, but require many instrumentalities to produce what they intend. But it will not be regarded as at all probable by those who know that God stands in need of nothing, and that He created and made all things by His Word, while He neither required angels to assist Him in the production of those things which are made, nor of any power greatly inferior to Himself, and ignorant of the Father, nor of any defect or ignorance, in order that he who should know Him might become man.8 But He Himself in Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, *predestinating all things*, formed them as He pleased, bestowing harmony on all things, and assigning them their own place, and the beginning of their creation. In this way He conferred on spiritual things a spiritual and invisible nature, on super-celestial things a celestial, on angels an angelical, on animals an animal, on beings that swim a nature suited to the water, and on those that live on the land one fitted for the land—on all, in short, a nature suitable to the character of the life assigned them—while He formed all things that were made by His Word that never wearies. _ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies_, Book 2:2:4.
> 
> *Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):* From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled.186 For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.
> Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith—which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord—*those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous*. _ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata_, Book VII, Chapter XVII.
> 
> DTK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's important that we try to understand how authors are using words instead of merely looking for the words and bolding them, assuming that their author have the same intent in mind that we do when we use them. To not do so is to lose credibility in our argument.
> 
> Irenaeus is obviously talking somewhat philosophically about the way God created the world, not about predestination as it relates to the eternal decree of the actions of free creatures, including the election of God's true people and their conversions.
> 
> Clement, on the other hand, is talking about the visible church, lamenting that there are those who are seeking to divide it into many sects. If he were talking about a mystical, invisible idea, he wouldn't have to complain quite so much about the sects (as I see it), since we, with our definition of the true Church, can live with visibly divided sects. In that sense, he seems to be talking about predestination with respect to those who are in this one unified Church. On top of that, the last sentence even sounds like it could be used by a modern day Arminian who says that election is based off of God's foreknowledge of our choices.
> 
> As Ron said, the question we have to ask is whether the Fathers understood predestination as we do.
Click to expand...



I don't think it was DTK's intention to prove that these quotes taught the predestination of individuals but rather that these quotes are proof that the early church fathers indeed taught predestination BEFORE Augustine which was the original concern that "NONE of the early church fathers TAUGHT predestination...." in whatever sense they meant it so that the original claim of the absense of any form of predestinarian doctrine pre-Augustine (which from my understanding is the original complaint by PuritansPilgrim buddy) is erroneous per the quotes provided by DTK.


----------



## JM

puritanpilgrim said:


> I had a buddy of mine, who just out of the clear blue converted to Greek orthodox. As we were discussing his rational, he brought up the point: "None of the early church fathers taught predestination until Augustine, and he didn't know Greek." I came to my understanding by the incredible about of evidence and teaching on this subject in the Bible. But, is that true? I'm not very knowledgeable about the early church fathers, and I would even know where to start in looking this up. The easiest answer is, "I don't care, that is what the Bible says." I'm comfortable with that statement. However, I hoped someone else might have some greater insight on this subject.



Gill's Archive

CHAPTER 1. OF PREDESTINATION

* Introduction
* SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus
* SECTION 2. - Ignatius
* SECTION 3. - Justin
* SECTION 4. - Minutius Felix
* SECTION 5. - Irenaeus
* SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus
* SECTION 7. - Tertullian
* SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus
* SECTION 9. - Caecillius Thascius Cyprianus
* SECTION 10. - Novatianus
* SECTION 11. - Athanasius
* SECTION 12. - Hilarius Pictaviensis
* SECTION 13. - Basilius Caesariensis
* SECTION 14. - Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus
* SECTION 15. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
* SECTION 16. - Hilarius Diaconus
* SECTION 17. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis
* SECTION 18. - Joannes Chrysostomus
* SECTION 19. - Hieronymus

CHAPTER 2. OF REDEMPTION.

* Introduction
* SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus
* SECTION 2. - Barnabas
* SECTION 3. - Ignatius
* SECTION 4. - Justin
* SECTION 5. - Ecclesia Smyrnensis
* SECTION 6. - Irenaeus
* SECTION 7. - Tertullian
* SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus
* SECTION 9. - Cyprian
* SECTION 10. - Lactautius
* SECTION 11. - Paulinus Tyrius
* SECTION 12. - Eusebius Pamphilius Caesariensis
* SECTION 13. - Julius Firmicus
* SECTION 14. - Athanasius
* SECTION 15. - Macarius AEgyptius
* SECTION 16. - Hilarius Pietaviensia
* SECTION 17. - Basilius Caesariensis
* SECTION 18. - Optatus Milevitanus
* SECTION 19. - Victorinus
* SECTION 20. - Marcus Eremita
* SECTION 21. - Faustinus
* SECTION 22. - Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus
* SECTION 23. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
* SECTION 24. - Didymus Alexandrinus
* SECTION 25. - Gregorius Nyssenus
* SECTION 26. - Pacianus Bareinonensis vel Barcilonensis
* SECTION 27. - Hilarius Diaconus
* SECTION 28. - Ambrosius Mediolanesiss
* SECTION 29. - Epiphanius
* SECTION 30. - Gaudentius Brixiensis
* SECTION 31. - Joannes Chrysostomus
* SECTION 32. - Ruffinus Aquileiensis
* SECTION 33. - Hieronymus

CHAPTER 3. OF ORIGINAL SIN, THE IMPOTENCE OF MAN’S FREE WILL, ETC.

* Introduction
* SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus
* SECTION 2. - Barnabas
* SECTION 3. - Ignatius
* SECTION 4. - Justin
* SECTION 5. - Irenaeus
* SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus
* SECTION 7. - Tertullian
* SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus
* SECTION 9. - Gregorius Neocaesariensis
* SECTION 10. - Cyprian
* SECTION 11. - Arnobius
* SECTION 12. - Lactantius
* SECTION 13. - Eusebius Caesariensis

CHAPTER 3. OF ORIGINAL SIN, THE IMPOTENCE OF MAN’S FREE WILL, ETC. (CONT.)

* SECTION 14. - Macarius Egyptius
* SECTION 15. - Athanasius
* SECTION 16. - Hilarius Pietaviensis
* SECTION 17. - Victorinus Afer
* SECTION 18. - Optatus Milevitanus
* SECTION 19. - Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus
* SECTION 20. - Basilius Caesariensis
* SECTION 21. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
* SECTION 22. - Gregorius Nyssenus
* SECTION 23. - Hilarius Diaconus
* SECTION 24. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis
* SECTION 25. - Epiphanius
* SECTION 26. - Marcus Eremita
* SECTION 27. - Joannes Chrysostomus
* SECTION 28. - Hieronymus

CHAPTER 4. OF EFFICACIOUS GRACE

* Introduction
* SECTION 1. - Clenems Romanus
* SECTION 2. - Barnabas
* SECTION 3. - Justin
* SECTION 4. - Irenaeus
* SECTION 5. - Clemens Alexandrinus
* SECTION 6. - Tertullian
* SECTION 7. - Origenes Alexandrinus
* SECTION 8. - Cyprian
* SECTION 9. - Eusebius Caesyreinsis
* SECTION 10. - Athanasius
* SECTION 11. - Marcus Egyptius
* SECTION 12. - Hilarius Pictaviensis
* SECTION 13. - Basilius Caesariensis
* SECTION 14. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
* SECTION 15. - Didymus Alexandrinus
* SECTION 16. - Gregorius Nysseuus
* SECTION 17. - Hillarius Diaconus
* SECTION 18. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis
* SECTION 19. - Marcus Eremita
* SECTION 20. - Joannes Chrysostomus
* SECTION 21. - Hieronymus

CHAPTER 5. OF PERSEVERANCE.

* Introduction
* SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus
* SECTION 2. - Barnabas
* SECTION 3. - Ignatius
* SECTION 4. - Irenaeus
* SECTION 5. - Epistola Martyrum Galliae
* SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus
* SECTION 7. - Tertullian
* SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus
* SECTION 9. - Cyprian
* SECTION 10. - Lactantius
* SECTION 11. - Eusebius Caesariensis
* SECTION 12. - Chronomatius
* SECTION 13. - Athanasius
* SECTION 14. - Macarius Egyptius
* SECTION 15. - Hilarius Pictaviensis
* SECTION 16. - Basilius Ceasariensis
* SECTION 17. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
* SECTION 18. - Oregorius Nyssenus
* SECTION 19. - Hilarius Diaconus
* SECTION 20. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis
* SECTION 21. - Joannes Chrysostomus
* SECTION 22. - Hieronymus

CHAPTER 6. OF THE HEATHENS.

* Of the Heathens
* A Vindication OF The Book Entitled Of the Cause of God and Truth


----------



## Davidius

Roldan said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DTK said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200):* This manner of speech may perhaps be plausible or persuasive to those who know not God, and who liken Him to needy human beings, and to those who cannot immediately and without assistance form anything, but require many instrumentalities to produce what they intend. But it will not be regarded as at all probable by those who know that God stands in need of nothing, and that He created and made all things by His Word, while He neither required angels to assist Him in the production of those things which are made, nor of any power greatly inferior to Himself, and ignorant of the Father, nor of any defect or ignorance, in order that he who should know Him might become man.8 But He Himself in Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, *predestinating all things*, formed them as He pleased, bestowing harmony on all things, and assigning them their own place, and the beginning of their creation. In this way He conferred on spiritual things a spiritual and invisible nature, on super-celestial things a celestial, on angels an angelical, on animals an animal, on beings that swim a nature suited to the water, and on those that live on the land one fitted for the land—on all, in short, a nature suitable to the character of the life assigned them—while He formed all things that were made by His Word that never wearies. _ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies_, Book 2:2:4.
> 
> *Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):* From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled.186 For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.
> Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith—which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord—*those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous*. _ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata_, Book VII, Chapter XVII.
> 
> DTK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's important that we try to understand how authors are using words instead of merely looking for the words and bolding them, assuming that their author have the same intent in mind that we do when we use them. To not do so is to lose credibility in our argument.
> 
> Irenaeus is obviously talking somewhat philosophically about the way God created the world, not about predestination as it relates to the eternal decree of the actions of free creatures, including the election of God's true people and their conversions.
> 
> Clement, on the other hand, is talking about the visible church, lamenting that there are those who are seeking to divide it into many sects. If he were talking about a mystical, invisible idea, he wouldn't have to complain quite so much about the sects (as I see it), since we, with our definition of the true Church, can live with visibly divided sects. In that sense, he seems to be talking about predestination with respect to those who are in this one unified Church. On top of that, the last sentence even sounds like it could be used by a modern day Arminian who says that election is based off of God's foreknowledge of our choices.
> 
> As Ron said, the question we have to ask is whether the Fathers understood predestination as we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it was DTK's intention to prove that these quotes taught the predestination of individuals but rather that these quotes are proof that the early church fathers indeed taught predestination BEFORE Augustine which was the original concern that "NONE of the early church fathers TAUGHT predestination...." in whatever sense they meant it so that the original claim of the absense of any form of predestinarian doctrine pre-Augustine (which from my understanding is the original complaint by PuritansPilgrim buddy) is erroneous per the quotes provided by DTK.
Click to expand...


Well that's great, but what does it prove to a person who left Calvinism for EO? If the guy left because he's looking for a certain kind of predestination in the Church Fathers, then showing him some quotes of the Fathers with a couple words bolded is not going to help him. In fact, it's probably going to drive him further away when he sees that the Fathers meant something different by predestination than we do. The Arminians teach "some form" of Predestination, too, but they mean something different by the term than we do, so I don't see how proving wrong the "absense [sic] of any form of predestinarian doctrine" ("any form" not being a phrase limiting "predestination" in the OP, by the way) is doing anything other than stating the obvious. If I'm wrong in my assumption that the person referred to in the OP is referring to _Calvinistic predestination_, then I apologize and retract all of these comments.


----------



## Roldan

Davidius said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's important that we try to understand how authors are using words instead of merely looking for the words and bolding them, assuming that their author have the same intent in mind that we do when we use them. To not do so is to lose credibility in our argument.
> 
> Irenaeus is obviously talking somewhat philosophically about the way God created the world, not about predestination as it relates to the eternal decree of the actions of free creatures, including the election of God's true people and their conversions.
> 
> Clement, on the other hand, is talking about the visible church, lamenting that there are those who are seeking to divide it into many sects. If he were talking about a mystical, invisible idea, he wouldn't have to complain quite so much about the sects (as I see it), since we, with our definition of the true Church, can live with visibly divided sects. In that sense, he seems to be talking about predestination with respect to those who are in this one unified Church. On top of that, the last sentence even sounds like it could be used by a modern day Arminian who says that election is based off of God's foreknowledge of our choices.
> 
> As Ron said, the question we have to ask is whether the Fathers understood predestination as we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it was DTK's intention to prove that these quotes taught the predestination of individuals but rather that these quotes are proof that the early church fathers indeed taught predestination BEFORE Augustine which was the original concern that "NONE of the early church fathers TAUGHT predestination...." in whatever sense they meant it so that the original claim of the absense of any form of predestinarian doctrine pre-Augustine (which from my understanding is the original complaint by PuritansPilgrim buddy) is erroneous per the quotes provided by DTK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's great, but what does it prove to a person who left Calvinism for EO? If the guy left because he's looking for a certain kind predestination in the Church Fathers, then showing him some quotes of the Fathers with a couple words bolded is not going to help him. In fact, it's probably going to drive him further away when he says that the Fathers meant something different by predestination than we do. The Arminians teach "some form" of Predestination, too, but they mean something different by the term than we do, so I don't see how proving wrong the "absense [sic] of any form of predestinarian doctrine" ("any form" not being a phrase limiting "predestination" in the OP, by the way) is doing anything other than stating the obvious. If I'm wrong in my assumption that the person referred to in the OP is referring to _Calvinistic predestination_, then I apologize and retract all of these comments.
Click to expand...


I absolutely agree with you. If Calvinistic predestination of individuals was intended then I'm on your team most def.


----------



## wturri78

The line that "nobody in the church believed such-and-such, before so-and-so," seems oft-repeated from many sources. And often it seems to come down to very selective use of sources, and to questionable definition of the terms being argued about. For example, the talk of "tradition" in the writings of the Apostles and early fathers is often cited by RCC apologists to prove that _sola scriptura_ was a Protestant invention--but they read the modern, full-fledged Catholic meaning of the term "tradition" into the text where they find it. The same could be said for terms like "the seat of Peter," etc. I'm sure Protestants are just as prone to doing it.

Implicit in the EO's claim is the idea that a doctrine must be found fully spelled out in a particluar form, in the writings of the early church, to count as "believed" prior to a certain time. Jehovah's Witnesses use the same line of reasoning to "prove" that nobody believed in trinitarian terms before the 3rd century. I would ask the EO (or anyone who uses this line of reasoning) whether doctrines that his particular church teaches will stand up to the same historical standard he's attempting to impose upon this particular doctrine. Most who are aware of history understand that doctrines take shape over time, become more clearly expressed over the course of centuries, and usually come to full expression as the result of a controversy that forces the church to confront it in detail. I bet the EO friend can't find the theology of icons spelled out in the first 200 years of history as clearly and fully as it was at the 7th Council, but he probably still kisses them


----------



## Davidius

wturri78 said:


> The line that "nobody in the church believed such-and-such, before so-and-so," seems oft-repeated from many sources. And often it seems to come down to very selective use of sources, and to questionable definition of the terms being argued about. For example, the talk of "tradition" in the writings of the Apostles and early fathers is often cited by RCC apologists to prove that _sola scriptura_ was a Protestant invention--but they read the modern, full-fledged Catholic meaning of the term "tradition" into the text where they find it. The same could be said for terms like "the seat of Peter," etc. I'm sure Protestants are just as prone to doing it.
> 
> Implicit in the EO's claim is the idea that a doctrine must be found fully spelled out in a particluar form, in the writings of the early church, to count as "believed" prior to a certain time. Jehovah's Witnesses use the same line of reasoning to "prove" that nobody believed in trinitarian terms before the 3rd century. I would ask the EO (or anyone who uses this line of reasoning) whether doctrines that his particular church teaches will stand up to the same historical standard he's attempting to impose upon this particular doctrine. Most who are aware of history understand that doctrines take shape over time, become more clearly expressed over the course of centuries, and usually come to full expression as the result of a controversy that forces the church to confront it in detail. I bet the EO friend can't find the theology of icons spelled out in the first 200 years of history as clearly and fully as it was at the 7th Council, but he probably still kisses them



I buy this to a certain extent. There is, however, another sense in which we contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. How do we distinguish between room for development and theological _nova_? And what do we do with two competing sects claiming to have both scriptural and historical precedent (even if the latter lies only within the realm of accounting for an acceptable amount of time for "development")?


----------



## FrielWatcher

puritanpilgrim said:


> I had a buddy of mine, who just out of the clear blue converted to Greek orthodox. As we were discussing his rational, he brought up the point: "None of the early church fathers taught predestination until Augustine, and he didn't know Greek." I came to my understanding by the incredible about of evidence and teaching on this subject in the Bible.



It seems as though this rationale is a ruse because there has to be something greater than this to cause a conversion, such as when a man is converted to Christ - it is the inward inspection and finding of his complete helplessness and sinful condition that is abhorrent, deserving of death. 

How early does the church father have to be for the teaching to be correct? If before 300AD - they were all correct and the rest were just riding on coat-tails after 300AD playing catch-up with more "liberal" ideas? What lines up with scripture, what is discerned correctly? 

There has to be something greater than just his rationale for not believing predestination.?


----------



## wturri78

Davidius said:


> I buy this to a certain extent. There is, however, another sense in which we contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. How do we distinguish between room for development and theological _nova_? And what do we do with two competing sects claiming to have both scriptural and historical precedent (even if the latter lies only within the realm of accounting for an acceptable amount of time for "development")?



Boy, if that ain't the reigning champion of questions that nag at my mind! It's even tougher to answer when it moves from "how do we distinguish?" to "who gets to distinguish?" I don't know that I could give a solid, scientific answer to this. It's almost like the famous Supreme Court justice (so famous, I can't remember his name ) who said "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it." Or the "reasonable man criterion" tossed around when deciding court cases. Maybe it's the best we have. I would have to draw the line at the Bible--any doctrine not stated explicitly, or reasonably derived from what is, cannot be reasonably believed to have developed over time from the original Christian corpus of belief. So I would say that Trinitarianism, Christology, etc. that almost all Christians hold to, are legitimate developments and refinements in doctrine. So, too, would be the Reformed doctrines of justification, sanctification, etc. I think things begin to become shaky when you can see ideas creeping into that stream of development that did not begin from Scripture--i.e. using purgatory, indulgences, etc. to justify a particular understanding of justification itself. Or the Marian dogmas proclaimed by the RCC. Sorry, but cobbling together a loose collection of "types" about the ark of the covenant, or Solomon's "queen mother," and then saying "See, Marian theology has its roots in the Bible!" really doesn't pass the "reasonable man" test. Or the "sniff test" as I'd prefer to call it!

As a last thought, just because a doctrine may be traceable through history and maybe even have had roots in an interpretation of Scripture, of course does not make it right. Both the RCC and EO interpretations of authority (Pope is head, vs. all bishops rule equally) certainly can be traced far back into history. Which makes your question about "competing sects" who can both legitimately claim historical precedent (from a shared collection of "saints," no less) even more pertinent. I don't believe you _can_ distinguish, unless you have a norm which norms all other norms.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

A couple of useful resources for study on these points are:

Links and Downloads Manager - Educational Links - Historical Theology -- William Cunningham - The PuritanBoard
Links and Downloads Manager - Educational Links - Treatise Concerning the Right Use of the Fathers -- Jean Daille - The PuritanBoard


----------



## Ron

Let’s review the bidding so we’re all off the same page. It was stated: “None of the early church fathers taught predestination until Augustine, and he didn't know Greek." Obviously that is not true as David pointed out with the quotes. Predestination was indeed in the minds of at least two of the fathers. My point was that the discussion with the EO guy needs a bit of clarification because anyone who has considered time and eternity on any level must be struck by at least some doctrine of predestination, whether it is Fate, Socinian, Reformed, Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. 

With all that said, I would assume that the EO guy _probably_ denies the Reformed doctrine of predestination and certainly believes that it [the Reformed variety of predestination] was not taught by the fathers. As I look back at the quotes I have at my disposal (Barnabas; Clement of Rome; Justin Martyr; Irenaeus; Clement of Alexandria; Ambrose of Milan), I find it impossible to conclude that these men were “Augustinian”, *yet equally impossible to conclude that they were not*. Accordingly, although the quotes offered by David may not be sufficient to prove that the fathers actually taught the Reformed doctrine of predestination - if those quotes are indeed representative of what at least some of the fathers did teach, which I believe they are, then *they do demonstrate that it is erroneous to conclude, as the EO man does, that they did not teach this doctrine!* In other words, in order to prove that the EO man has drawn an invalid conclusion, all that needs to be demonstrated [which we get a sampling of in those two quotes provided by David] is that there is no conclusive evidence available to us that would demonstrate that fathers denied the Reformed doctrine of predestination! Keep in mind that the EO’s claim is that the fathers did not teach our doctrine of predestination, which for him to substantiate would require him to show that they taught something else! All of this does not mean that the fathers affirmed our doctrine, mind you. It only means that it is an unsubstantiated claim to say they did not. If all we have are relevant quotes that are consistent with, yet do not affirm or deny, the doctrine of which we speak, then it may not be logically maintained that the fathers did not teach this doctrine - for to advance such an argument would require _positive_ evidence and not just silence. This line of reasoning, however, cuts both ways. We may not conclude that they taught our doctrine either.

In the final analyses, from my limited study on the matter I find it inconclusive, until Augustine, what the church taught on this matter. Augustine is most clear because he, unlike the fathers, offered an actual polemic against a contrary position. Yet for our purposes, let someone from Rome or the Eastern church prove their claim that the fathers did not teach the Reformed variety of predestination. _In one sense_ we could care less what they taught in this regard because we believe in a church that is allowed to improve and reform. We, as Reformed Protestants, believe in progressive illumination. 

Ron


----------



## Ravens

> I bet the EO friend can't find the theology of icons spelled out in the first 200 years of history as clearly and fully as it was at the 7th Council



This is a critical insight. I tried to express the same idea in my own fumbling language in another thread, but this example is succinct and gets to the heart of it. I rarely ever hear this issue dealt with by those who are moving towards Rome or the East: That is, once progressive illumination, or a growth in understanding, is accepted, in practice and principle, then it seems as if the principled argument against the Reformation is in large measure eviscerated. 

It seems to me that the same principle that would mitigate against a clarification of the doctrine of justification in the 16th century would mitigate against the satisfaction of Anselm (and, indeed, the East frequently points to this as an example!), the Marian doctrines, the teaching regarding the Bishop of Rome, etc. If evolution and clarification is accepted in principle by the Roman and Eastern churches, then how can it be used against the Reformation?

One could say that any and all evolution and/or progressive illumination is just an illusion or misunderstanding based on the extant manuscripts, and that the oral teaching of the church regarding all of those things was always the same. But I don't know any RC or EO who would claim that, and furthermore, that's no different (and no more easily substantiated) than a Protestant claiming that the early church fathers taught this or that Reformed doctrine, but that it can't be proven because the sources are not extant. 

Both of those appeals are appeals from silence, and the only thing we have to judge by, it seems, are the extant writings, which clearly (to my mind) show doctrinal development over time.

In all of these things a spirit of patience and charity must about. I think sometimes people who are dealing with the RC and the EO simply get pat, pit-bull responses from Protestants that really don't deal with the issues in any intellectual and respectable manner, and that is unfortunate. That's also what I try to avoid, and probably what Davidius is reacting against.

I think one would have to be bereft of any sense of history and sense to not at least consider whether one was, in fact, wrong, and admit the possibility that one might be outside the true visible church, looking in! The strongest arguments and clearest thinking will come about when one has at least admitted that one could be wrong, rather than gathering the shields about and just ignoring all arguments to the contrary. I don't really think that is helpful to anyone.


----------



## RamistThomist

Both EO and Rome would probably accept the Vincentian canon. It would deny both Pelagianism and Augustinianism. It would probably deny Icons, except that iconic sketches were found in Roman catacombs and if St John of Damascus is right, and icons are included in the tradition Paul speaks of, then icons would be okay. But of course, who can actually prove that. 

So the vincentian canon is good, but doesn't say what we need it to say.


----------



## wturri78

> It seems to me that the same principle that would mitigate against a clarification of the doctrine of justification in the 16th century would mitigate against the satisfaction of Anselm (and, indeed, the East frequently points to this as an example!), the Marian doctrines, the teaching regarding the Bishop of Rome, etc. If evolution and clarification is accepted in principle by the Roman and Eastern churches, then how can it be used against the Reformation?



I agree that double standards seem to abound. They can and do go both ways, but I think they're more pronounced on the RCC side. As I understand it, Cardinal Newman expounded a theory of "doctrinal development" to show that Roman dogmas didn't have to always have been believed as they were later expressed--a seeming departure from the earlier language of the counter-reformation, when it seems the RCC claimed that its doctrines had always and everywhere been believed, right on down through the ages. Given their whole theory of development (which itself probably developed ) it seems odd that they'd attack the Reformation on the grounds that the doctrine of justification can't be found expressed in the early church, using the language of the 16th century.



> In all of these things a spirit of patience and charity must about. I think sometimes people who are dealing with the RC and the EO simply get pat, pit-bull responses from Protestants that really don't deal with the issues in any intellectual and respectable manner, and that is unfortunate. That's also what I try to avoid, and probably what Davidius is reacting against.



I couldn't agree more. In the case of the original poster's EO friend, answering his inquiries with a sledge hammer will not help to illumine errors. 



> I think one would have to be bereft of any sense of history and sense to not at least consider whether one was, in fact, wrong, and admit the possibility that one might be outside the true visible church, looking in! The strongest arguments and clearest thinking will come about when one has at least admitted that one could be wrong, rather than gathering the shields about and just ignoring all arguments to the contrary. I don't really think that is helpful to anyone.



Excellent insight--sometimes you have to leave your circle and look back in from the outside, to figure out how you got there in the first place. I know former Catholics who did that, and found that once they were outside, they realized their underlying and unquestioned presuppositions--and couldn't find their way back into the "fold!"


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

This has been a most interesting thread to read.

Thanks especially for the link to Gill. I'm looking forward to reading this.



> CHAPTER 1. OF PREDESTINATION
> 
> * Introduction
> * SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus
> * SECTION 2. - Ignatius
> * SECTION 3. - Justin
> * SECTION 4. - Minutius Felix
> * SECTION 5. - Irenaeus
> * SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus
> * SECTION 7. - Tertullian
> * SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus
> * SECTION 9. - Caecillius Thascius Cyprianus
> * SECTION 10. - Novatianus
> * SECTION 11. - Athanasius
> * SECTION 12. - Hilarius Pictaviensis
> * SECTION 13. - Basilius Caesariensis
> * SECTION 14. - Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus
> * SECTION 15. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
> * SECTION 16. - Hilarius Diaconus
> * SECTION 17. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis
> * SECTION 18. - Joannes Chrysostomus
> * SECTION 19. - Hieronymus


----------



## puritanpilgrim

Thanks for the replies. I have been away a couple of days and I need a little time to dig through all of this. When he asked me this I didn't have a quick answer to his point from that angle. I'm not very knowledgeable about the early church fathers.


----------



## JohnOwen007

puritanpilgrim said:


> I had a buddy of mine, who just out of the clear blue converted to Greek orthodox. As we were discussing his rational, he brought up the point: "None of the early church fathers taught predestination until Augustine, and he didn't know Greek."



This is a classic argument both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics make. But you can throw it back at both parties:

[1] To EOs: No one believed in iconography until the 5-6th century; and the use of icons is fundamental to EO.

[2] To RCs: No one believed in the papcy like the modern RCC did until the 11th century when Gregory VII caused a theological revolution.

What we must understand with Church History is that there are critical times when doctrines are hammered out. Before then, naive opinions about those doctrines were held.

Yes, anyone who has studied the pre-Augustine fathers in context and as a whole will find it difficult to find a non-naive worked-out doctrine of predestination. That's because there were other issues dominating the theological landscape at the time: creation _ex nihilo_, the Trinity, and the person of Christ as the most significant. All of these are of salvation importance. It was only in the Pelagian controversy (and that mainly in the West) that the doctrine of predestination was hammered out.

The problem with the Eastern Orthodoxy is that it can't get out of the past: it doesn't believe in _semper reformanda_: what is old is good. That is not always true. Some of their beliefs (like the inspiration of the LXX) are akin to believing in a flat earth scientifically: we resolved that issue a while ago, and we don't want to turn back the clock.

Blessings Pilgrim.


----------

