Having spent some time reading through the writings of the Fathers, I cannot help but notice the lack of teaching that coincides with a lot of 'reformed' doctrines.
e.g
The Fathers works are not scripture
I also appreciate that it is generally agreed that they 'lived their theology' rather than spending time debating precision of words etc.
But I also appreciate that they are not heretics, yet many of their views would be considered heretical by reformed people especially when these views are rearticulated today. Indeed many of their writings seem more arminian in nature.
My question is, from the perspective of a historian- is this not problematic for protestants?
e.g
- Emphasis on free will
- Clear emphasis that believers can lose their salvation
- Emphasis on salavation being by both faith and works
The Fathers works are not scripture
I also appreciate that it is generally agreed that they 'lived their theology' rather than spending time debating precision of words etc.
But I also appreciate that they are not heretics, yet many of their views would be considered heretical by reformed people especially when these views are rearticulated today. Indeed many of their writings seem more arminian in nature.
My question is, from the perspective of a historian- is this not problematic for protestants?