In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part 10 – A Historical Defense

RE # 70:

If we can’t identity any source as accurate … then we must evaluate the truth of any given statement, exactly the way Jesus told us to: by its “fruits.”

If I throw in lots of rheotical questions? Rhetorical questions often attempt to frame logical problems with a given approach; by way of examples. Hypotheticals that show that if you follow or believe what you claim to believe, then you would also logically have to believe … another, absurd position.

But I can try to avoid framing objections as questions, if you like.

00 Truth:

Yes I do. Explain why circular logic is good. Please do. Go ahead.

Re#101:

“But I can try to avoid framing objections as questions, if you like.”

Please, and thank you!

Specifics are always more appropriate on a theology blog.

Again, here’s what CMP sez:

“Scripture is always to be interpreted according to the accepted, albeit fallible, regula fidei of the early church as represented in the early creeds and councils.”

This might mean that scripture is infallible … but our interpretations or understandings of scripture, are not.

So when you tell me: “The Bible means” or “the Bible said” this or that, It’s your understanding of it. And that is always “fallible.”

[Not for MBaker: Indeed, you might even ask, what’s the use of having an infallible Bible … if we will never live to see it as it is?]

18 of the last 25 posts are from G.

Please use some restraint in posting.
Please stay on topic.
Please do not hijack or sabotage this thread.
Please use actual sentences.

Dr. G.: “Yes I do. Explain why circular logic is good. Please do. Go ahead.”

First, please don’t misconstrue what I wrote. I did not say that circular logic was good. What I’m saying is that your objection of circularity is not a defeater for using Scripture and for appealing to Scripture as Ultimate Authority.

Take a moment and think. Circular argument is unavoidable when we make the case for an ultimate standard of truth. One who believes that human reason is the ultimate standard will argue that view only by appealing to reason. One who believes that the Bible is the ultimate standard of truth can argue only by appealing to the Bible.

Since all positions partake equally of circularity at this level of argument, it cannot be a point of criticism against any of them.

Do you understand?

Scripture is, as the Reformers emphasized, norma normans non normata,

“The norm of norms which cannot be normed.”

Sola Scriptura.

There is nothing external to Scripture that can norm or correct it.

Capisce, Dr. G.?

1) So scripture is true because scripture tells us it is true. And there is no appeal.

Pretty neat. But….?

2) At this level of the argument many types of thinking are circular. But move up a level. In fact, Reason for example is not quite so circular: reason has proven itself by other standards. Reason, logic, Math … is proven in other fields; when our Math works in empirical experiments for example.

3) Do someone walking around with the self-appointed name “Truth,” really want to call anyone “pretentious” for talking about circularity …?

There are many people attracted to Religion, not because of its goodness … but because being offered the change to borrow its position of absolute authority, appeals to their Vanity.

It feels great to speak for God; to be even HIS VOICE. And to feel you can disallow any and all counterarguments? But …?

John CT:

Sorry. My inadequate excuse fir hogging it all, is I’m responding mostly to posts directed to me specifically often: to G. And hopefully, they’re short.

But we of course do want to hear more of your own, tightly-reasoned logical arguments.

Dr. G,

Please refain from posting so much. I don’t think many people are following you and it really highjacks the post and makes others less likely to comment. Thanks so much.

I quite agree with comment #106. Quid pro quo arguments are rarely helpful, especially if they are conducted in the vein of you can’t prove it is and I can’t prove it isn’t type of debate. Nothing is more boring or unfruitful. And G did state in a comment above, himself that it was the ‘fruits’ which proved a point.

If G is really serious about having a theological discussion, as he has stated, let us see some real honest theology from him for a change. rather than continuing to flood this thread with vague rhetoric and unsubstantiated assumptions.

To continue in this vein is not fair to the rest of us who do appreciate sound and informative debate, which addresses the who, why, where, what and how of things in a manner that all can benefit, and learn from reading.

Looks like he’s succeeding in hijacking yet another good thread. One has to start wondering if it’s deliberate.

If I leave, you have the last word; if I respond, I’m hogging the site.

Nice work M. See you around

Sorry G, that doesn’t quite make sense. It was noted above that 18 of 25 comments were from you. That leaves 6 from other folks. If they were all addressed to you, that would give you 6 comments, not 18. You need 3 comments to evey one from someone else??

Cheryl,
I agree with you on #90. If we want someone else to define something so important as Biblical knowledge, then we sort of turn the power over to that person. It does a disservice to our ultimate understanding of doctrine.

But relationship with God invariably is outside the scripture, even though some people are comfortable with it being only within the confines of the pages. With that said, the words on the pages are supposed to be living, alive…so when we read them we not only get understanding, we receive peace,comfort, joy and rest.

We need to approach the Bible in such a manner that it speaks to us, but this is what I have found so important…even though we have the words on the page we still live from every word which proceeds out of the mouth of God, and He speaks in that still small voice. The Bible is written by God and we must learn it, but there are some who read it, but they choose not to really desire the benefit from it and miss out on great blessing. I like what David said…Thy Word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against Thee.

Yepper, it’s about the Man and his book, which is HIS word. I don’t see how the two can be separated.

I just realized that in comment #113 above, I couldn’t seem to subtract correctly. I guess that makes it more like two and 1/2 comments to one instead of three to one.

Kara: ‘But relationship with God invariably is outside the scripture, even though some people are comfortable with it being only within the confines of the pages.’

I see that as the central point. We Protestants make a big deal of the scripture being our ultimate authority whereas Jesus did not intend that at all. Consider if Jesus had written a scripture for us Himself. All Christians would then have no trouble recognizing that as the ultimate written authority. But even that would be just words—a message cast in human language—limited and fallible.

Jesus taught with words and actions, but it was his spirit that He wanted to impart. And wisely it was His spirit that he left with us. Thus, we are guided by a spirit and not simply by words.

Rayner,
Good thing He was the word made flesh….He is the express image of the Bible to begin with…both spoken and written word…makes Him the Logos…

Jesus said “it is written” when dealing with three things….

1:sustenance
2:safety
3:worldly fame

I wonder if Jesus knew about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs?

CMP,

Granted that one should not make a word-concept fallacy, but we should be able to find the concept expressed. In point of fact you can find the term sola scriptura prior to the Reformation, for example in Aquinas, but Aquinas for example doesn’t mean by it what the Reformers meant by it. This is why the patristic citations you give are of lesser value in supporting your claim.

2nd it is interesting that Protestants have to appeal to the development of doctrine, just like the Catholics to justify their distinctives. If such a development were right, we’d expect it to be taught somewhere in the bible. (Progressive revelation isn’t the same idea as DOD). That seems dubious. Moreover, any theological or conceptual model on a developmental schema can make sense out of any contravening evidence, even if the model is false so doctrinal development seems irrelevant to justifying certain claims.

3rd. The citations you give articulate some necessary conditions for Sola Sriptura, but none of them give either separately or conjointly the sufficient conditions for it. The citation from Ireneaus is something a Catholic, Orthodox or a High Church Anglican holding to the Laudian Prima Scriptura position could hold to. It doesn’t single out the idea of Sola Scriptura

Clement’s citation only indicates when people will be satisfied via a demonstration. It doesn’t say that the individual is the final judge using the scripture so that they alone can bind their own consciences. That is a necessary condition for Sola Scriptura that isn’t found in Clement. Further, to speak of the the Scriptures as the final court seems mistaken, since the Scriptures are on anyone’s account to be the rule employed by the judge. The question then is, who is the judge using the rule? Furthermore, your reading of Clement is contradictory if those people using the Scriptures are part of the church. And finding the truth of the matter is one thing, making a normative judgment which can bind others is another. High views of church tradition do not preclude the former.

Gregory is speaking relative to heretics who reject ecclesiastical judgments. He is speaking in the context of persuading others he views to be outside the church.

Athanasius’s comments are fully compatible with a high view of tradition which affirms that the Scriptures are sufficient for proclamation of the truth. That idea isn’t sola scriptura in a nascent form.

Basil’s citation isn’t any help either. I’d suggest looking in a different translation. “But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture…” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vii.viii.html
That reads a bit differently. Further, Basil is quite clear in that work that there are other sources of practice and theology than Scripture that possess apostolic normativity like the Scriptures do.

Even taking Ambrose’ comments on their face, this is not sufficient for Sola Scriptura since a good Prima Scriptura like Archbishop Laud or George Bull could say such a thing.

Augustine’s statement is compatible with the a high view of tradition, which includes the idea that individual bishop’s may err. Second, Augustine affirms that bishops have a spiritual authority passed down through apostolic succession to teach and interpret that laymen do not possess.

None of the citations then express the idea of Sola Scriptura but only some necessary conditions common to a plurality of views with which they are compatible. You need to give citations that express the idea in question.

I think you have missed the point of its development. These passages, I have argued, do indeed present sola Scriptura in a seed form. Of course they are not articulated as these type of things are only worked out through certain controversies.

Having said that, the rest of what you said really beg the question in my opinion. Any response would only serve to respond in kind.

But, I do appreciate your coming here and thinking through these issues!

CMP,

The point was that you need to show that the idea was expressed in nascent form. None of the citations show the idea expressed in nascent form. What they show is a more general view that shares some of the same necessary conditions with Sola Scriptura along with other views. So I have not begged the question, rather you have given not engaged the claim I made.

I know what you are saying, but just saying it does not really do much? I they really speak for themselves.

I didn’t merely assert, I gave arguments which show the conceptual content of the statements include some necessary conditions of SS but not the sufficient conditions and that those same necessary conditions are also necessary conditions for other non-SS positons. And that the conceptual content of those citations does not express in nascent form the idea of SS. So far, you haven’t addressed those arguments.

Again, i would just say that your arguments are assertions based upon what you already believe. We both are bound by this, but my arguments present the reasons I believe the way I do. You may not agree, but they are all substantial. If you don’t think they are at all, we don’t really have a reasonable and balanced basis from which to discuss this.

I engaged the claims you made directly. So far my you have left my arguments untouched. So let me try it this way.

Your argument is that Sola Scriptura is not a theological novelty because such and so historical pre-reformation sources express in nascent form the idea of sola scriptura. Is that right?

My arguments were the following.

1st argument.
Such and so texts express conditions X Y and Z.
X,Y,Z conditions are necessary conditons for Sola Scriptura.
Therefore such and so texts express some necessary conditions for Sola Scriptura.

2nd Argument
X,Y, Z conditions are necessary conditions for Prima Scriptura.
X,Y, Z conditions are necessary conditions for Sola Scriptura.
Prima Scriptura is not co-extensive with Sola Scriptura
The same ecessary conditions can be such for two different concepts.
Such and so texts express conditions X,Y, Z.
Such and so texts express necessary conditions for both Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura.
It is necessary for a demonstration of the expresison of Sola Scriptura from a text that the text express those conditions that are true of Sola Scriptura alone.
Such and so texts do not express those conditions that are true of Sola Scriptura alone.
Thertefore such and so texts do not express Sola Scriptura.

3rd Argument
It is necessary for a demonstration of the expression of an idea from a text that the text express or present the necessary and sufficient conditions of the idea.
None of the texts given express both necessary and sufficient conditions of the idea of Sola Scriptura.
Therefore none of the texts express the idea of Sola Scriptura.

Therefore, such and so historical pre-reformation sources do not express the idea of sola scriptura, therefore sola scriptura is a theological novelty. QED via modus tollens.

Now, where are my exactly are any one arguments mistaken?

I don’t know, but it looks like you need to read the whole thing.

The thing people forget is this. People like Thomas Aquinas and Samuel Beckett and Thomas More (which is an ancestor of mine along with Samuel Johnson) or was in Thomas A Beckett? Those men were already studing the great philosophies of great poets such as Plato and it was a symbol of status to read Plato in Greek.

Intellectualism became the pursuit above actual relationship. The only issue Thomas More had with the Wycliffe Bible is because he was hired directly to debunk it without actually reading it. So even then it was nothing more than politics again.

So they approached theology as they did philosophies and never thought to incorporate it into the natural sciences apart from the social sciences. We today do not understand the Hellenistic culture, but those men did and knew quite well how to best the person they were debating with, it was part of their education at Cambridge and Oxford. So many times it became like Celebrity Boxing match with ideas.

CMP,

I did read the whole thing a few times.

Kara,

I think you misread Aquinas to be fair. Aquinas fully admits that rational discourse is greatly limited. He remakred towards the end of his life that all his works were piles of straw.

Perry, I believe that there are many options that are valid. I understand them all. I don’t think either one of us rejects the other because of a lack of understanding. I could be wrong, but I don’t think there are any really persuasive things that are left out that would bend us. So long as we are both not building straw men, there are other factors that lead us to our positions. Good men have been persuaded by the Catholic view, Orthodox view, and the Protestant view. There are other mitigating factors which draw the lines. It would come down to the validity of those factors.

Agreement can be made on this even if we can’t agree about authority. So long as you are Christocentric, we can simply cover these details on the new earth. (Of course, this is not to say that this is not an important discussion here).

Mr. Patton–

This has been a rather stimulating discussion, and I appreciate the fact that you chose to post.

I am interested in is whether or not you now agree with Perry that the citations you have given fail to establish that SS was present in seed form in the Fathers. His attempt to undercut your claim seems to me to have been successful, though surely more can be said on the subject from both sides. I would like to see if you can show not only (1) the Fathers say things that are consistent with Sola Scriptura (which is only a moderately significant claim) but (2) the Fathers say things that, if developed consistently, would plausibly entail Sola Scriptura as opposed to other views (such as Laudian Prima Scriptura, the Roman Catholic doctrine, etc.).

Absent a good argument for (2), it seems that at best we have arguments that the Fathers believed in Prima Scriptura or something like it. What would be really good for the Sola Scriptura case would be if we could locate patristic texts that teach that no ecclesiastical authority has any kind of normative power to bind our consciences to believe particular interpretations of Scripture. This seems to be a necessary part of the Reformation doctrine, and it looks like the main dividing line between Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura. Without this crucial piece of the puzzle, we don’t have testimony to SS in the Fathers. I believe there are some that may appear to say this, but when situated within the immediate context of the author’s writing and the larger context of the author’s belief about the Church, it becomes more difficult to sustain.

Do you see texts indicating that any of the Fathers taught that hierarchs could not bind our consciences to believe specific interpretations of Scripture?

MG, not at all. Prima Scriptura is much more complex to defend. These, I believe, are the seed form of sola Scriptura, as I said. But, certainly, it would be easy enough, for either side to see their view represented here, but I would think that prima would have to do much more reading into some of these text.

“What would be really good for the Sola Scriptura case would be if we could locate patristic texts that teach that no ecclesiastical authority has any kind of normative power to bind our consciences to believe particular interpretations of Scripture.”

Yeah, it would also be really good for us to find a Scripture verse that say God exists eternally as Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, three persons, one God. Better, just God is Trinity.

We always have to look at the seed forms of the doctrines and allow them to be articulated as those forms are understood in time. I believe that because of the strong biblical support for sola Scriptura and seeing these early Fathers exhibit the same basic, though undeveloped, understanding (not to mention the practical issues involved), sola Scriptura is the most responsible choice for the Christian.

Mr. Patton–

you wrote:

“These, I believe, are the seed form of sola Scriptura, as I said”

In what sense are they the seed form? In that they are consistent with it? Or are they the seed in that it is more plausible that they entail Sola Scriptura instead of Prima Scriptura?

“prima would have to do much more reading into some of these text.”

Can you explain this and give examples of texts that can’t be naturally read as teaching Prima Scriptura?

You wrote:

“Yeah, it would also be really good for us to find a Scripture verse that say God exists eternally as Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, three persons, one God. Better, just God is Trinity.”

I’m not looking for an explicit statement, and I’m sorry if I communicated that I was abiding by such an extreme standard. I’m wondering if the concepts and ideas show up in any Fathers. Can you provide examples of where the concepts and ideas are taught?

You wrote:

“We always have to look at the seed forms of the doctrines and allow them to be articulated as those forms are understood in time. I believe that because of the strong biblical support for sola Scriptura and seeing these early Fathers exhibit the same basic, though undeveloped, understanding (not to mention the practical issues involved), sola Scriptura is the most responsible choice for the Christian.”

Are you saying that the conceptual content of Sola Scriptura is taught in the Fathers, but not formulated the same way (in other words not stated in the exact words the Reformers use)? If so, where is the idea (note: not words or exact formulations) taught that no ecclesiastical authority has any kind of normative power to bind our consciences to believe particular interpretations of Scripture?

If you mean something else by “seed form”, like “the Fathers teach or assume principles that more plausibly lead to Sola Scriptura than other understandings (ie. Prima Scriptura)” where do you see these principles taught and why do they more plausibly lead to Sola than Prima?

If you mean by “seed form” that the Fathers taught a doctrine of authority consistent with SS if we added on additional conceptual content, but not that they taught anything that would lead specifically towards SS and away from Prima Scriptura, then why is this an important claim? This seems to be similar to saying that Barth’s view of Scripture existed in seed form in the Reformers, because the Reformers taught that Scripture contained the Word of God.

You might protest “well, the Reformers taught things inconsistent with Barth’s view of Scripture; the Fathers don’t teach anything inconsistent with Sola Scriptura”. But this second statement, that the Fathers don’t teach anything inconsistent with Sola Scriptura, probably requires some argument. I could try and make the opposite case either here or on my blog if you’d like.

Also, would you mind if I commented on your biblical support for Sola Scriptura? Or is that post off-limits for commenting because its been awhile since you posted it?

Mr. G,

The concepts are included in this article. Your statements simply beg the question and restate your own position.

The reason why I posted them is to say that I do see them as seed forms of the doctrine. Some come so close to describe and illustrate it perfectly. But I don’t want to read too much into them so I conservatively call them “seed.”

I think that it would be a matter of refuting that these passages are saying that Scripture is our ultimate sorce. However, all attempts to do so seem to return to the ditch of nuda Scriptura.

I hope you understand if I leave it at that. Once a post gets this far down, it is very hard for me to manage my time and continue to engage in such.

I will, however, leave the post open for further discussion.

BTW, DG and others,

Here is a link to an extensive rebuttle of my posts: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/11/reply-to-c-michael-patton-on-sola_14.html

I don’t think it is persuasive, but it will give you an idea of how Cathlics who disagree with me might respond.

Thomas Aquinas, founder of Thomism, inspired a book called Summa Theologica, second in importance to the Catholics.

Thomism integrated theology and Artistotlism. And he was inspired by contemporary Islamic author Averroes. Blaise Pascal mentions the Thosmists in the Provincial Letters which I did read just recently. So it is amazing that building a scolarly life to which many people were forced to accept his teachings that at the end he would say he offered straw men arguments.

If that was dangerous then why did he feel compelled to keep offering it? The Provoncial Letters by Pascal were a serious answers to a debate occuring in the university in Paris. I just read his book Pensees and the Provinicial Letters.

Aquinas was a philospoher who taught people his ideas. It doesn’t matter to the latter what happened at the former and it just goes to show when theology is taught or wrote about, to leave it in the hands of a shallow few then it begins to narrow the viewpoint that those who are not intellectual or scholarly are left out of that seeking and made to eat the crumbs.

I don’t think Aquinas was a bad fellow, I don’t know him, but it seems these philosophers were not concerned with the religion of the masses, but how to explain better along their heirarchy of church power. They debated among themselves while all of Europe hung in the balance waiting for the impact.

Kara,

There are a couple of things to correct here. Thomas uses terminology from Aristotle, this much is true, but so did all of the late Platonists commentators on Aristotle’s works, which were pretty much the only commentators on Aristotle’s works. Thomas is fundamentally an Augustinian with a Platonic metaphysic. Thomas was so fitted with such an accute intellect that while Averroes and other Muslims thought that the Book of Causes was from Aristotle, Thomas single handedly showed that it was not but the work of a Platonic commentator.

Thomas doesn’t say that his arguments are strawmen arguments. He says that all of discursive theology is straw in comparison with experience of God. I am no thomist, nor a friend of Thomism by any means and in fact known for being a critic of it, but to say that Thomas is shallow is beyond reasonable. And at the time few people could read at all and even now, most people read literary junk and Christians are no better. How about the responsibility that a person in the western world with free access to a library, major universities, the internet, what do most Christians read? Junk like say Joel Osteen. The masses follow fools and wolves because the masses are irresponsible and shallow themselves. This is not to say that people like Osteen don’t bear some responsibility, but if people exercised just the smallest amount of dicernment and actually read some moderate beginer quality material, he wouldn’t have half the people he does on the wide path to hades.

Kara,

Addendum,

Thomas didn’t inspire the Summa Theologica, he wrote it. And at the time, there were many Summas or Summaries written by many different theologians. Thomas’ wasn’t uniqu in writing summary handbooks of theology.

Perry,
I just borrowed my info from wikipedia and forgot the quotes. It says he did incorporate muslim ideology. I have read Thomas Aquinas and Beckett and Pascal and a host of philosophers. It should be noted they all are philosophers first and theologians second.

Kara,

Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate and been subject to specific frauds specifically in relation to much of the material on Catholicism. The information there as you cited it is inaccurate. Avveroes or Ibn Rashid was the major commentator on many of the works of Aristotle. Aquinas responds to him, agrees to him, corrects him and modifies him. To say that he incorporates Islamic theology is grossly inacurate. As someone who holds degrees in philosophy and who taught it for a number of years, and specifically taught Aquinas with late antiquity and mediveal metaphysics as my area of specilization, I can say this with sufficient competence.

Second, the line you draw between theology and philosophy is rather sharp and isn’t justified in a number of cases.

Michael, I’ve read the whole series. I don’t really understand still how you can in any way support the statements of the fathers about tradition. I wonder if there is some wishful thinking on your part.

The test I would propose is this: Would one of the tradition based churches (Catholic, Orthodox, maybe high-Anglican), notice anything odd if your quotes were preached in church? I don’t think so. Would a protestant church notice anything odd if the preacher started talking about holding to traditions? I think so! Very much so!

Some posters above have tried to analyse your logic, but the basic smell test of whether your church could stand to have this preached I think gives the real answer to whether you can have a claim to be in the camp of the Fathers, and I find it hard to believe you pass this test.

If your church can’t stand to have the Fathers preached about these issues of authority, then how can you claim to not be a solo scripturaist, since on this topic at least, you reject the tradition about scripture and tradition? I know you think you’ve explained it in this series, but I don’t get it.

Perry,
There is a distinct line between philosophy and theology.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Was it not philosophers that Paul was speaking to when he made his Mars Hill sermon? Aren’t the Epicurians also philosophers?

Ye men of Greece I believe in all things ye are too superstitious….and he goes on to say…even as your own poets have said…

Kara,

Paul is speaking of philosophies not according to Christ. How about those that are? The condemnation is not a carte blanch condemnation of philosophy. Besides, your view would toss out the theology of the Reformers. How will you state and defend Sola Fide without the idea of a Formal or Instrumental Cause? You can’t.

Perry
Again, I don’t hold to the theologies of the early church fathers. I believe they were in error because they advocated and promoted anti-semitism.
Their theologies led them into excluding a great portion of the European population and gave way to pogroms and expulsions in the name of Christian theology. So no, I don’t agree with them. They used philosophical viewpoints to infuse into theology, not the other way around.

Kara, can you define anti-semitism and then point us to what you’re talking about? People have accused the bible of anti-semitism too you know.

D. Williams,
I can indeed give you examples if you wish.

John Chrysostom, 344-407 A.D., preached: “The Jews … are worse than wild beasts … lower than the vilest animals. Debauchery and drunkenness had brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only … to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill and beat each other up … I hate the Jews … I hate the Synagogue … it is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews.”

Martin Luther “Set Jewish synagogues on fire for the honor of God. God will see we are Christians when we get rid of the Jews. Likewise homes should be destroyed; they should be put in a stable; they are not heirs of promises of God and deserve to die. Deprive them of all prayer shawls, prayer books and communication, revoke all passports, stop them from doing all business, everything they possess we believe they stole and robbed from us. They do not have God’s blessings, drive them out of the country … get rid of them.”

Two examples from their writing themselves. How is is part of grace and mercy to promote and advocating killing people on the basis of their ethnicity?

I believe the definition of grace has been changed to accommodate certain people and their own idea of their election because they believe themselves better than someone else in the eyes of God. How much more can you be anti-Semitic than to call for their deaths from the pulpit?

Kara, Luther is not a church father, and Chrysostom didn’t call for their deaths.

And it seems their problem is not ethnic but religious. Judaism is both an ethnicity and a religion.

I’ll bet you haven’t actually read Chrysostom and have no idea where these quotes come from. They appear to be from some homilies Chysostom wrote against Judaizers in the church. You weren’t around at the time to know if Chrysostom’s assessment is correct. Remembering that the Jews of Antioch were very aggressive and they tried to help Emperor Julian the Apostate to overthrow Christianity in the empire and return to the pagan religion. Their activities in Antioch where Chrysostom was were particular nefarious, succeeding in shutting down the Church there for a time.

So you’ve got to remember that Jews and Christians were at war – literally, in a winner take all battle. Haven’t you heard Christians in the modern day say negative things about Islam? Jews were the equivilent back in Chrysostom’s day. They had their own Osama bin Ladans, but they were Jewish, and they weren’t off in some remote land, but they were working with the emperor to shut down the church.

Now, are you willing to read these people in the historical context in which they existed?

D. Williams
To say Christians and Jews were at war, is that completely accurate? They certainly had times of scuffles but really who instigated it?

Now you could say they did and using your concept of time and place for historical accuracy can you tell me where Jews were calling for mass killings of Christians? And just because Luther came later than Origen or Chrysostom does not really make a difference because he is indeed founder of the Reformation age, therefore he is the father of Protestants in that sense.

Ok the question is not Judaizers, but Jews because he specifically says Jews. Now the book I quoted from Luther was Von Den Juden und ihren Lugen…complete with umlauts that my keyboard does not have. That book in English is called Concerning the Jews and Their Lies.

Chrysostom argued that Jews will be crucified throughout history because they crucified Christ: “It is because you shed the precious blood, that there is now no restoration, no mercy anymore, and no defence.” Is that really what happened or was that Judaizers who did that?

Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny “Truly I doubt whether a Jew can be really human… I lead out from its den a monstrous animal and show it as a laughing stock in the amphitheatre of the world. I bring thee forward, thou Jew, thou brute beast, in the sight of all men”

How much more should you have to read to understand that the hatred was again these people both ethnically and religiously, and I think it is a shame you assume I don’t know who or what a Jew is. Laws were passed forbidding marriage with Jews, slavery of Jews, death for any Jew who entered certain cities, Forbidding Jews to be outside during Passover, and oh yes, my favorite, the old accusation of eating Christian children’s blood.

Have you read their writings? If not then perhaps you need to go the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod homepage and see that they have specifically denounced Martin Luther as anti-Semitic and are distancing themselves from his speeches regarding Jews. To say it was war is whitewashing and to say they deserve it because of that is absolutely baseless and to defend Christians who did this is utterly inexcusable.

If you say these men were only saying what was politically correct for the time, remember they were the ones who created the policies of enforced religion.

Do you really want to keep saying what you just did? If you do then you whitewash what they did.