Monergism refuted

[RBerman]

If you read my quote closely I said you INFER it.

I did not infer it. You have made a false inference from what I said.

If you look closely at the list of Fathers I mentioned, I went up to and included Athanasius who died in the year 371. Augustine was first ordained a priest in the year 381. By early church fathers, I mean Apostolic Fathers, who would have lived within a generation or two of the Apostles and also Greek Fathers who spoke the language the NT was actually written in. Phat8594 on his comments about TULIP, was clearly referring to writers who lived closer to the time of the Apostles. You had to jump all the way to the year 381 and beyond, 347 years after Pentecost, to come up with someone who remotely agreed with Calvin. Which makes our point, if the Apostles taught reformed theology and/or TULIP, then you would think there would be a hint of it in the writings of those who immediately followed them, or disciples of those disciples.

You appeared to group Augustine with the ECF when you said "Augustine (an ECF)." As to the presence of Reformation distinctives earlier than him, I addressed that earlier. The early church was consumed with (1) survival, (2) Christological heresies, and (3) Trinitarian debates. Those were the hot-button topics, and those were the writings which have survived. Soteriology received greater scrutiny and more careful articulation as a result of the Pelagian controversy in Augustine's day. That's what happens in theology: A controversy leads orthodoxy to express the old truths in new terms to combat heresy. If Pelagius had lived 200 years earlier, then the same thing would have happened earlier.

[themuzicman]

(Of interesting note is that the council of Orange headed by Augustine was rejected by the Church as not inerrant, and not practiced by the church in his day. Furthermore, Augustine himself would have rejected at least two of the solas from the Reformation.)

[arrow1]

As to the presence of Reformation distinctives earlier than him, I addressed that earlier. The early church was consumed with (1) survival, (2) Christological heresies, and (3) Trinitarian debates. Those were the hot-button topics, and those were the writings which have survived

Perhaps those were "hot-button" topics, but they were not the only topics. For example, if you look at the early writings of the
first 300 years collectively, you see baptism for the forgiveness of sins, a form of real presence in the Eucharist and the
ever-virginity of Mary with mostly unanimous consent, and for the most part no instances of dissent or contention.

There is alot of discussion of man's free will, and virtually no discussion of totally depravity or inherited guilt. There are
many warnings against falling away, and no discussions of eternal security. There is simply not one single Reformation
distintive found anywhere in these writings, for if there was, surely you would have provided it by now.

As to Augustine, he basically "over-reacted" to Pelagius and went too far the other way. Just as did the Reformers, they
"over-reacted" to Rome & basically developed Rome-o-phobia. If it looked remotely Catholic, they began to throw the
baby out with the bathwater.

You'll notice there never was a Protestant Reformation in the Eastern Churches. If Sola Scriptura is true, surely one
congregation in the East would have figured it out and headed the way of Luther & Calvin.

[RBerman]

Perhaps those were "hot-button" topics, but they were not the only topics. For example, if you look at the early writings of the first 300 years collectively, you see baptism for the forgiveness of sins, a form of real presence in the Eucharist and the ever-virginity of Mary with mostly unanimous consent, and for the most part no instances of dissent or contention. There is a lot of discussion of man's free will, and virtually no discussion of totally depravity or inherited guilt. There are many warnings against falling away, and no discussions of eternal security. There is simply not one single Reformation distinctive found anywhere in these writings, for if there was, surely you would have provided it by now. As to Augustine, he basically "over-reacted" to Pelagius and went too far the other way. Just as did the Reformers, they "over-reacted" to Rome & basically developed Rome-o-phobia. If it looked remotely Catholic, they began to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You'll notice there never was a Protestant Reformation in the Eastern Churches. If Sola Scriptura is true, surely one congregation in the East would have figured it out and headed the way of Luther & Calvin.

I don't draw much conclusively from those documents which survived the difficult early years of Christianity. I don't imbue them with an aura of perfection; unlike the Bible, they are simply the answers given by particular men at a particular time in response to a particular set of questions. If you thnk that the Reformers threw out anything that looked remotely Catholic, then you haven't read them much. The Reformer's grievances were very specific, falling into three major categories: (1) moral abuses; (2) soteriology; (3) church organization, including married clergy and the heavy-handed attempts of the Roman magisterium to crush the Reformation with "how dare you question your betters" harrumphing.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I don't draw much conclusively from those documents which survived the difficult early years of Christianity.

They are the ones who GAVE you the Canon of Scripture... Their pedigree, unlike the Reformation, is written in their martyric blood... They were taught by Christ, or the Apostles, or those taught by the Apostles... You can cling to your Reformation from Apostate Rome 500 years after Her self-imposed separation from the Apostolic communion of Churches if you wish, but that birth is illegitimate... Not even Rome recognizes it... You were not birthed in the manner in which the Church births additional Churches... You birthed by using Holy Scripture to attack your illegitimate Mother, Rome, and prove Her wrong, and make her agree with you, and it did not work, and you, like your Mother, went your own way... That's the truth... You are trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, and what you have is human reasoning from printed words in Scripture, and what you need is the Apostolic Witness of the Body of Christ Who is Her Head, and that is the Orthodox Holy Communion, battered as it is...

I don't imbue them with an aura of perfection;

They were God Illumined, and not infallible - Neither is the Pope... Their collective Patristic Witness, however, is the Cure of the Soul from the Fall of Adam...

unlike the Bible, they are simply the answers given by particular men at a particular time in response to a particular set of questions.

The same can be and should be said, times 10, of the Reformation, and this because of the apostatic and error riddled condition of their Mother Church, Scholastic and Latin Rome...

The Faith was given ONCE, for ALL, to the APOSTLES... You simply cannot so arrogantly and cavalierly dismiss the witness of the direct recipients of that Faith and their writings... I mean, you CAN, but not for the benefit of your soul... And it is passed down, from generation to generation... It is not re-invented by each person who reads his private Bible and draws his own conclusion as to its meaning...

Arsenios

[arrow1]

don't draw much conclusively from those documents which survived the difficult early years of Christianity. I don't imbue them with an aura of perfection;

Nobody is saying they are perfect. They just reflect the witness of the early church. Just like the latest book or video
from John Piper or Rick Warren reflects a modern witness of Americanized christianity.

The point is, they do not reflect in any way a witness to Reformed Theology, which if it were true, then we have to believe
the Apostles did a horrible job of passing off the baton to the following generations.

Do you honestly believe that the early Christians copied, preserved, and passed on exactly the correct Canon of Scripture,
yet when they put to pen their thoughts on what it meant and how to interpret it, they all uniformly got every Reformed idea
wrong??

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Nobody is saying they are perfect. They just reflect the witness of the early church. Just like the latest book or video
from John Piper or Rick Warren reflects a modern witness of Americanized christianity.

The point is, they do not reflect in any way a witness to Reformed Theology, which if it were true, then we have to believe
the Apostles did a horrible job of passing off the baton to the following generations.

Do you honestly believe that the early Christians copied, preserved, and passed on exactly the correct Canon of Scripture,
yet when they put to pen their thoughts on what it meant and how to interpret it, they all uniformly got every Reformed idea
wrong??

It's HARD to kick against the goads...

A.

[RBerman]

Do you honestly believe that the early Christians copied, preserved, and passed on exactly the correct Canon of Scripture, yet when they put to pen their thoughts on what it meant and how to interpret it, they all uniformly got every Reformed idea wrong??

As I've said several times, the ECF were answering a different set of questions due to the different circumstances of their day. That's not the same as "getting every Reformed idea wrong."

[arrow1]

As I've said several times, the ECF were answering a different set of questions due to the different circumstances of their day. That's not the same as "getting every Reformed idea wrong

Just because they wrote something down, does not mean they were answering a question or refuting a heresy. Are you denying
they at times were just reflecting on theology or trying to teach the christian religion to their congregation.

How would the circumstances of their day change how they practiced baptism or communion?? Shouldn't that be a common
practice among all Christians in all nations at all times? The Trinity is simply true or it isn't, Mary was either a perpetual
virgin or she wasn't. Baptism is either for the forgiveness of sins or it isn't. The day of worship is either Sunday or it
isn't. Either women can be ordained or they cannot. Fasting is Fasting. Heresy is Heresy.

The Bible does not change to answer questions in one century and then change to answer different questions in another.
The Bible does not change based on ones circumstances.

Whatever their circumstances were back then, as they were answering those "different set of ?'s" they also incidentily said
many, many things in direct opposition to Reformed Theology.

[RBerman]

How would the circumstances of their day change how they practiced baptism or communion?? Shouldn't that be a common practice among all Christians in all nations at all times? The Trinity is simply true or it isn't, Mary was either a perpetual virgin or she wasn't. Baptism is either for the forgiveness of sins or it isn't. The day of worship is either Sunday or it isn't. Either women can be ordained or they cannot. Fasting is Fasting. Heresy is Heresy.

The Reformers were not monolithic on any of these issues. If you think I would defend every variety of belief held on them today by Protestants, you are mistaken.

[arrow1]

The Reformers were not monolithic on any of these issues.

And again, that is the point. The early church was. As a collective whole, the witness of the early church
as to baptism, eucharist, falling away, ever virgin Mary, liturgy, Apostolic succession, they were for the most
part very consistent and mostly in agreement, and there was no hint of Reformed theology.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

The ECF were answering a different set of questions due to the different circumstances of their day.
That's not the same as "getting every Reformed idea wrong."

So which of the Sola's did they get right?

A.

[rhutchin]

And again, that is the point. The early church was. As a collective whole, the witness of the early church as to baptism, eucharist, falling away, ever virgin Mary, liturgy, Apostolic succession, they were for the most part very consistent and mostly in agreement, and there was no hint of Reformed theology.

Were the issues that became controversial after Reformed theology was expressed ever at issue in the early church? Was the process of salvation ever an issue with the early church fathers? Was there any reason for any hint of Reformed theology to be an issue for the early church? The reformed movement was a reaction to catholic abuses which themselves were not present in the early church, were they?

So, what is the point you are making? You lost me.

[themuzicman]

The ideas of the reformation really weren't a concern until Augustine, who proceeded to have a council rejected by the Church, only to have the Reformation pick up on his errorneous ways and resurrect them.

[arrow1]

So, what is the point you are making? You lost me.

The point is, that in the early church there was for the most part unanimous agreement with the idea of
baptism as the point of the new birth, real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Ever-Virginity of Mary,
that one can lose your salvation, the validity of Apostolic Succession and the following of Oral Tradition.

Those are all ideas that both the Eastern & Western Church agreed with, but many of the Reformers
did not. (some reformers agreed with a few) All of those ideas are in opposition to Reformed Baptist theology
of today.