Replies

So what (my thinking went) if Irenaeus or Justin or Augustine didn’t sound exactly like our Reformed creeds and catechisms? Yet now in examining their writings I began to sense that indeed there was something more profound at work than a mere difference in expression or emphasis. Was the Catholic claim right? Continued reading suggested that the actual theological substance of the Fathers was different. Certainly the Fathers didn’t seem at odds with the positive elements of the Reformation. But I noticed in my reading that they thought differently than did the reformers. Their approach to the Christian faith took another route. They seemed to cut an early theological path that when traced did not exactly connect to the one blazed by the reformers in the 16th century. I began to consider whether a person would naturally pick up the distinctive trail of the Protestant Reformation if one started with the writings of the early Church? The answer increasingly seemed to be no.

This statement rather betrays him. In all actuality, a firm reading of Augustine, for example, only shows one thing: that the greatest expression of Augustinian theology is Reformation theology, not the Catholic. Even on things like transubstantiation and predestination, Augustine falls on the Reformation side. Calvin's understanding of the sacraments was, itself, entirely Augustinian. He did not invent it. He was taught it from Augustine, perhaps improving in some points, but largely the spirit is that of Augustine's, and Augustine's from the Apostles. Those Catholics on this forum familiar with my posts on the matter are well aware of what Augustine has to say on these matters, and I doubt there are very many left who would oppose me on it.

The Reformers also did not flee from the writings of the Church Fathers. They did not even claim to be anything other than Catholic. From the essay "Catholic Calvinism":

"In 1536, a 27 year old exile from France addressed Roman Catholic King Francis regarding a new religious movement that Francis opposed. This exile takes pains to deny that the teaching of the movement is, in fact "new" and "of recent birth." To the contrary, says the humanist scholar, the gospel preached in this movement is as "ancient" as Paul's gospel. Winchester Moreover, "if the contest were to be decided by patristic authority, the tide of victory would turn to our side."1 For the young Jean Calvin, the reform of the church entailed a rediscovery of the scriptures--and a rediscovery of the scriptural theology of the patristic writings from the church's first five centuries.

Thus, it is not surprising that as Calvin's ministry and thought developed, he went to great lengths to deepen his knowledge of patristic theology and spread this knowledge to others. In a move that would please today's Anglo-Catholics, Calvin promoted the radical idea that John Chrysostom's sermons should be made available in the vernacular French. Not only scholars should read the church fathers, but ordinary Christians--just as Christians should also be reading the Bible. Of course, Calvin did not agree with everything he read in patristic works--indeed, this would have been impossible, given the diversity of thought in the patristic period. But the Reformation was a restoration of the scriptural theology of the early centuries of the church--and until the end of his life, publishing The True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ--Calvin continued to draw deeper and deeper upon the "ancient fathers" of the first five centuries, who were "of a better age of the church."2"

http://www.rca.org/page.aspx?pid=2996

Now this guy writes like he is utterly unfamiliar with these facts, and with the writings of Augustine. And even sounds as if he himself was not familiar with these writings before hand, despite the very real emphasis and study of the church fathers promoted by the Reformers. If he did, how does one square the fact that the Church Fathers directly disagreed with doctrines the Roman church declares infallible and from the mouth of the Apostles directly? The claim of Romanism is that it's teachings are historical. So, why then are they not historical?