NPP Church Fathers

[arapahoepark]

I came across this list of church fathers that were purported to be similar to the NPP as told by the Catholic and even some Orthodox.

Irenaeus, "Against Heresy" 4:13–16. Ambrosiaster, "Commentary on Romans". Pelagius, "Commentary on Romans". Origen "Commentary on Romans". Justin Martyr, "Dialogue" Ch 10–11. Clement of Alexandria, "Stromata" 6:6. Ignatius, "Magnesians" 8. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical Lectures" 4:33.

I heard Ambrosiaster said the works of the law were ceremonies but what about the others?

 

[MW]

There is no patristic doctrine on this subject. The fathers were not considering the subject when they made their various statements and they certainly did not develop anything like an exegetical or systematic form of the doctrine.

The following assessment is from "a Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians," p. 235, by John Eadie:

The earlier fathers were not accustomed to minute doctrinal distinctions, and they often write without precision — their thoughts occupied with the entire process of salvation, without any minute analysis of its separate parts. Such freedom produces apparent inconsistency in careless utterances which may be variously expounded. So that the patristic history of the doctrine of justification has been viewed from opposite points, and been to some extent interpreted in the light of previous opinions. See, for example, on the one hand, Davenant's De Justitia, cap. xxix.; Faber's Primitive Doctrine of Justification, chap. iv.; and on the other hand, Bellarmine's De Justificatione, and Newman. See also Donaldson's Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine.

Faber's Primitive Doctrine suffices to show that the Protestant doctrine is at least in harmony with patristic thought.

 

[arapahoepark]

I am finding three of Faber's stuff: one on election, one on regeneration and another on justification. Are those the ones?

 

[MW]

I am finding three of Faber's stuff: one on election, one on regeneration and another on justification. Are those the ones?

I was referring to the one on justification. I think he attempted to prove too much; but his references go a long way towards showing that the Protestant doctrine is not novel and is consistent with what the fathers taught.

 

[RamistThomist]

A few years ago I asked the leading EO apologist if NPP was broadly harmonious with the church fathers/EO. He said the question really didn't make sense of the context. If the fathers did occasionally hit upon an NPP-sounding theme, it was largely accidental.

 

[Philip]

Which New Prespective?