Introduction and Thesis 1: Denial of the Patristic Consensus is a Denial of the Clarity of Scripture

I, the Nonpastor introduce myself and explain why denying the patristic consensus is a denial of the clarity of Scripture.

9 thoughts on “Introduction and Thesis 1: Denial of the Patristic Consensus is a Denial of the Clarity of Scripture

  1. I listened to all three so far looking forward too more. I have had a similar path went from Baptist to OPC, later leaned towards the URC, even though there aren’t any in my area. I became very discouraged and got out of church for awhile, then started attending an LCMS at first because of what they didn’t hold to. Thanks for your labors.

  2. After listening to your introduction it left me wondering if you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

  3. How would you respond to one of those smart-alecky Roman Catholic pop-apologists who attempts to claim that James 2:24 plainly denies Sola fide or that the sola fide wasn’t found in the early church or some oft-repeated catchphrase of that sort?

    • You can find a variety of soteriological positions in the early church fathers. I would argue that you can find the basic elements of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran doctrines of justification in the early church fathers but that you don’t necessarily find the full-blown version of either in the early church fathers. You can find some quotes here of church fathers affirming sola fide: http://lutherancatholicity.blogspot.com/search/label/Faith%20Alone

      James is among the books of the New Testament that was disputed throughout church history. Even some of Luther’s Roman Catholic opponents disputed the canonicity of James. The Lutheran position is that the disputed books should be interpreted through the lens of the undisputed books and should not be used as the sole source of any doctrine. The disputed books tend not to be as clear in their teaching as the undisputed books. Revelation is also among the disputed books and you find all kinds of strange cults that develop by starting with the book of Revelation and then interpreting the rest of the Bible through the book of Revelation. The canonical order of the New Testament actually provides a very helpful guide for interpreting the New Testament but Roman Catholic apologists always want to go running to one of the disputed books as their starting point for doing theology. I always point them to the historic liturgy which gives prominence to the Gospel reading. James speaks of the person who says they have faith but doesn’t show any care or concern for their brother in Christ. Our faith is shown before men by our works.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *