While
I was away on vacation, two books I was not aware of were brought to my attention
in the combox of THIS
THREAD.
On
12-21-17, I ordered Believer's
Baptism, and Long
Before Luther. I received both books yesterday, and read the latter
of two last night. In early 2018, I hope to provide reviews of both books, but
until then, I would like to recommend a dissertation referenced in Long
Before Luther: Brian John Arnold's, Justification One Hundred Years
After Paul. A PDF copy is available online via THIS
LINK.
Though
I have just started reading the dissertation, I felt compelled to bring it to
the attention of those folk interested in the doctrine of justification as
taught in the second century Church Fathers.
ENJOY!!!
Grace
and peace,
4 comments:
David,
I am still reading Ashton-McGee’s dissertation. I don’t think I will get through much of this dissertation. I did want to ask about this:
“Chapter 3 analyzes the seven letters of Ignatius. Although he only makes one pertinent reference to justification, Ignatius does have much to say against Judaism, which reveals a good deal about his view of justification.”
My question is to what extent is Chapter 3 (and perhaps much or most of the rest of the dissertation) impacted by the idea that the reformation profoundly misunderstood Judaism. I am not sure this is still called the New Perspective upon Paul as it is older and I think more accepted. I don’t even really need an answer from you, I just think that reading the ECF as if they held the 16th century reformers view on Paul might be problematic.
Charity, TOm
Hi Tom,
So good to hear from you again. Earlier today, you wrote:
==I am still reading Ashton-McGee’s dissertation. I don’t think I will get through much of this dissertation.==
Interesting, I found it to be quite informative. Could you share with me 'the why' you don't think you will finish reading it?
==I did want to ask about this:
“Chapter 3 analyzes the seven letters of Ignatius. Although he only makes one pertinent reference to justification, Ignatius does have much to say against Judaism, which reveals a good deal about his view of justification.”
My question is to what extent is Chapter 3 (and perhaps much or most of the rest of the dissertation) impacted by the idea that the reformation profoundly misunderstood Judaism. I am not sure this is still called the New Perspective upon Paul as it is older and I think more accepted.==
In an attempt to answer your question, I think it best to begin with Arnold's stated goal:
>>This dissertation seeks to answer the following question: how did Paul’s view of justification fare one hundred years after his death? It will be argued that the Fathers in this period believed in justification by faith, despite claims that they held to works righteousness. To suggest that all the Fathers held the same view or to say that it is expressed with the clarity of the Reformers, would be to overdraw the bow. Doctrines are not forged until they have passed through the furnace of controversy and been pounded out on the anvil of debate. Justification did not enter the white-hot intensity of this furnace until the Reformation.>> (Pages 14, 15.)
Arnold clearly acknowledges that doctrines develop, which is a truism that I fully embrace, and importantly, most informed Catholics accept. Just as Arnold does not expect to find, "that all the Fathers held the same view or to say that it is expressed with the clarity of the Reformers", Catholics does not expect to find, "that all the Fathers held the same view or to say that it is expressed with the clarity of [Trent]."
Now, with that said, the main problem I have with Arnold is that his dissertation proceeds under the presupposition that official Catholicism teaches a form of "works righteousness" soteriology. This is a grave error, for official Catholicism denies all forms of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, and embraces sola gratia. And further, when properly defined, Catholicism is able to acknowledge (and has done so a number of times) a form of sola fidei. [See THIS THREAD for germane examples.]
CONT'D
CONT'D
As for the "New Perspective" on Paul, Arnold writes the following:
>>The dissertations, monographs, and articles that interact with the New Perspective are legion. This dissertation is not one of them. Interacting with the New Perspective on Paul would make this project swell to unmanageable proportions. Though the findings of this study should have an impact on the New Perspective, it is not the intention to deal directly with it. This is especially the case because those in the New Perspective camp have not looked closely at the second century. Instead, they have contented themselves to examine Second Temple Judaism, the New Testament, and then the Mishnah (which was not even codified until the third century). Thus they have entirely overlooked the second century, a century which gives the first glimpse into what those following the apostles believed about justification—a surprising oversight to say the least.>> (Page 24)
On the same page in footnote #36 he mentions a comprehensive work that is best response to NP from the 'traditional' Evangelical view:
>>Responses to the New Perspective are just as numerous. For the most thorough, scholarly response, see D. A. Carson, Peter O’Brien, and Mark Seifrid, eds., Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, WUNT, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001). >>
==I don’t even really need an answer from you, I just think that reading the ECF as if they held the 16th century reformers view on Paul might be problematic.==
Hope my above efforts have addressed this...
Grace and peace,
David
David,
Thanks for the response.
I meant I hoped to finish Ashton-McGee and didn't think I would get to this thread.
Charity, TOm
Post a Comment