Early Church Dads And Reformers ...

[Herald]

As are we today as well.

In the presence of sound teaching. We have an advantage that the early church did not enjoy. Many of the doctrines we hold on to have been fully vetted and debated over the centuries. When Christians, or entire churches, go off the rails today they cannot claim ignorance.

 

[Allan]

I would certainly agree with that statement about Luther

Oh no.. Luther was 'absolutely' for and held to an Unlimited view of Atonement. He held redemption was of only for the Elect, no question, but the Atonement was for the whole of mankind.

There are threads in the BB on Luther where I show this (I believe it was me and Jarther in the discussion). In fact I believe the name 'Luther' is in the title of one of the threads by Jarther.

 

[Allan]

Rippon.. for the hudredth time! Put the citiation as to where the original quote came from so people can look at the context of the statement. Pulling a few words out of a sentence does not make for an accurate statement of the persons intended view.

As I showed before in this thread an example as listed below [below is a modified listing (to which I added the citations) from Rhodes]:

Quotations from the Early Church Fathers

Clement of Alexandria (150-220): "Christ freely brings...salvation to the whole human race."
Paedagogus, ch. 11;
"...and supplying all the antidotes of salvation to those who are diseased. For the greatest and most regal work of God is the salvation of humanity."
Paedagogus, ch. 12

Eusebius (260-340): "It was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race."
Demonstratio Evangelica, ch. 10, preface;

Athanasius (293-373): "Christ the Son of God, having assumed a body like ours, because we were all exposed to death [which takes in more than the elect], gave Himself up to death for us all as a sacrifice to His Father."
On the Incarnation of the Word,

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "Do not wonder if the whole world was ransomed, for He was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God."
Catacheses, 13:2;

Gregory of Nazianzen (324-389): "The sacrifice of Christ is an imperishable expiation of the whole world."
23 Oratoria 2 in Pasch., i.e., Passover;

Basil (330-379): "But one thing was found that was equivalent to all men....the holy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He poured out for us all."
On Ps. 49:7, 8, sec. 4;

Ambrose (340-407): "Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit."
Ambrose also said, "Christ came for the salvation of all, and undertook the redemption of all, inasmuch as He brought a remedy by which all might escape, although there are many who...are unwilling to be healed."
On Ps. 118, Sermon 8

Augustine (354-430): Though Augustine is often cited as supporting limited atonement, there are also clear statements in Augustine's writings that are supportive of unlimited atonement. For example: "The Redeemer came and gave the price, shed His blood, and bought the world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price: what is of so great worth? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations?"
He also stated, "The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of all sins."
Serm. cxxx, part 2

Cyril of Alexandria (376-444): "The death of one flesh is sufficient for the ransom of the whole human race, for it belonged to the Logos, begotten of God the Father."
Oratorio de Recta Fide, no. 2, sec. 7

Prosper (a friend and disciple of Augustine who died in 463): "As far as relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ, and the sacrament of regeneration, do not partake of the redemption."
Prosper also said, "The Savior is most rightly said to have been crucified for the redemption of the whole world."
Prospor then said yet again, "Although the blood of Christ be the ransom of the whole world, yet they are excluded from its benefit, who, being delighted with their captivity, are unwilling to be redeemed by it."
Answer to Vincentius
the second and third quotation:
Reply to Capitula Gallorum, no. 9,

Quotations from the Reformers of the 16th Century
Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world....He hath given Himself for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the whole world....Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world...Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world...take hold upon Christ."
Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians;

Philip Melanchton (1497-1560): "It is necessary to know that the Gospel is a universal promise, that is, that reconciliation is offered and promised to all mankind. It is necessary to hold that this promise is universal, in opposition to any dangerous imaginations on predestination, lest we should reason this promise pertains to a few others and ourselves. But we declare that the promise of the Gospel is universal. And to this are brought those universal expressions which are used constantly in the Scriptures."
Melanchthon, Common-places

Other people involved to some degree in the Reformation who held to unlimited atonement include: Hugh Latimer, Myles Coverdale, Thomas Cranmer, Wolfgang Musculus, Henry Bullinger, Benedict Aretius, Thomas Becon, Jerome Zanchius, David Paraeus, and John Calvin.
For documentation, see Douty, pp. 139–41.

Quotations from Other Luminaries from Recent Church History
Philip Schaff: "His saving grace flows and overflows to all and for all, on the simple condition of faith....If, by the grace of God, I could convert a single skeptic to a childlike faith in Him who lived and died for me and for all, I would feel that I had not lived in vain."


B. F. Westcott: "Potentially, the work of Christ extends to the whole world." And "the love of God is without limit on His part, but to appropriate the blessing of love, man must fulfill the necessary condition of faith."
B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John

A. T. Robertson: [The word "world" in John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world" - means] "the whole cosmos of men, including the Gentiles, the whole human race," and adds that "this universal aspect of God's love appears also in II Cor. 5:19; Rom. 5:8."
A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament

Tidbits

The 6th council in Constantinople (680-681) declared, "Wherefore we confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in him for the salvation of the human race."

The reformers, and certainly the children of the reformers, were not united on this matter. It is, of course, no secret to the student of the Reformation that the Lutheran branch almost without exception embraced the unlimited view. "But that Luther, Melanchthon, Osiander, Brentius, Oecoiampadius, Zwinglius and Bucer held the doctrine of a general atonement...

Thus also, it was with their immediate successors, as the language of the Psalgrave Confession testifies.... 'Of the power and death of Christ, believe we,' say these German Christians, that the death of Christ (whilst he being not a bare man, but the Son of God, died,) is a full, all sufficient payment, not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world. . . [James Richards, Lectures on Mental Philosophy and Theology (New York: M. W. Dodd, 1846) p. 304]

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) of the German Reformed Church in answer to the thirty-seventh question, "What dost thou understand by the word Suffered?" has this answer: "That all the time he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, he bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the of the whole human race...."[pg 8]

John Calvins Commentaries:
...
John 3:16, he said: ". . . The Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.''11 Concerning the term whosoever in the same verse, he said: "And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the impact of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.''

Such an understanding of this verse and the words employed in it is certainly not in keeping with many who claim to be Calvinists, as the following pages will reveal. Another illustration of Calvin's view is to be found in his explanation of:

Matthew 26:28. ". . .This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins [italics mine]." He says: "Under the name of many he designates not a part of the world only, but the whole human race"

In fact it would be better held that Limited atonement was not popular UNTIL the Synod of Dort.

Now since this is about irresistable grace, for reasons listed above and scriptures that stand by them (historical stances and scriptural stance) I maintain that it can not be irresistable if Christ died for ALL.

Lastly:
Romans 5:18 says: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

Regarding this verse, John Calvin says: "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all [i.e., in their experience]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."

Regarding the two occurrences of the phrase "all men," E. H. Gifford comments: "The words all men [in v. 18] must have the same extent in both clauses."

 

[Allan]

And almost every patristic and early church father believed in baptismal regeneration. They also believed that sin after baptism resulted in an unrecoverable fall from grace. The early church was inconsistent and prone to extremes.

Not true.. though there were a few who 'practiced' the act of infant baptism in the early church fathers (up to around mid third century) baptismal regeneration was not something you could find. Cyprian held to it and few others of his time but again, this is third century). In fact it was't till Augustine that it was stated, by him, the Church at large practices this (and that is at the time of the beginning of what we know as the RCC though not yet fully grown). Around mid third century and in fullness by the fourth century, we have baptismal regenation coming in as a new concept and then into full swing by about 450'ish. According to earlier historical sources it can be noted that infant baptism was a topic of discussion during the times of the early church. I do not argue infant baptism was even practiced by some at this time, and a rare few stated it was due to apostalic tradition. Yet looking at Tertullian, an early church father who is most recognized as a staunch defender of the apostolic traditions, never spoke to nor gave no defense for infant baptism in any form.

Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.), "On Baptism" in Ante-Nicene Fathers III, 678, argues against infant baptism on grounds of not prematurely receiving forgiveness of sins and then incurring some post-baptismal sins afterward.

Cyprian (ca. 250 A.D.), Letter # 58 (ANF, V, 353), argues that the church ought not delay baptism until the 8th day (after the model of Jewish circumcision) but baptize a newborn immediately.

Note Cyprian was not speaking on behalf of the Church, but was stating his own thoughts and there were at this time some others who held his view.

According to the Didache, which served sort of as an early church manual, gave instructions for baptism and it appears that only adults are baptized:

"Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand." [Didache]

Let us not confuse baptismal regeneration with baptism of an infant (much like circumsision)

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Not true.. though there were a few who 'practiced' the act of infant baptism in the early church fathers (up to around mid third century) baptismal regeneration was not something you could find. Cyprian held to it and few others of his time but again, this is third century). In fact it was't till Augustine that it was stated, by him, the Church at large practices this (and that is at the time of the beginning of what we know as the RCC though not yet fully grown). Around mid third century and in fullness by the fourth century, we have baptismal regenation coming in as a new concept and then into full swing by about 450'ish. According to earlier historical sources it can be noted that infant baptism was a topic of discussion during the times of the early church. I do not argue infant baptism was even practiced by some at this time, and a rare few stated it was due to apostalic tradition. Yet looking at Tertullian, an early church father who is most recognized as a staunch defender of the apostolic traditions, never spoke to nor gave no defense for infant baptism in any form.

Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.), "On Baptism" in Ante-Nicene Fathers III, 678, argues against infant baptism on grounds of not prematurely receiving forgiveness of sins and then incurring some post-baptismal sins afterward.

Cyprian (ca. 250 A.D.), Letter # 58 (ANF, V, 353), argues that the church ought not delay baptism until the 8th day (after the model of Jewish circumcision) but baptize a newborn immediately.

Note Cyprian was not speaking on behalf of the Church, but was stating his own thoughts and there were at this time some others who held his view.

According to the Didache, which served sort of as an early church manual, gave instructions for baptism and it appears that only adults are baptized:

"Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand." [Didache]

Let us not confuse baptismal regeneration with baptism of an infant (much like circumsision)

Good and accurate post.

 

[screwtape]

Hi all, first post here. I stumbled upon this thread while doing research on the essay posted here. It is still a draft (and I'm terrible at grammar). It does offer up some long quotes from some ECFs on the topic of Total Inability and Irresistible Grace as well as my personal thoughts on the subject. I understand that section two is quite long and boring. If you want to skip over it (and come back to it later) please do but at least read the Clement of Rome and Lactantius sections.

I take a different angle on this topic. It seems to me that the foundation for either the Reformed or Arminian argument is the unprovable axiom, "My exegesis is correct." My essay does not claim to know the correct exegesis it looks at the historical roots of Total Inability and Irresistible Grace.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12171083/TI and IG.pdf

Thanks for your time!