At the biennial Reformed gathering known as Together for the Gospel, Dr. J. Ligon Duncan asked Did the Fathers Know the Gospel? (hat tip: Justin). Rev. Duncan’s answer was an emphatic Yes. “These are our people,” he asserted, proceeding to cite, nay, perform stirring passages of gospel witness from the ancient Church. The following is a syllogism that seemed to spring naturally from this wonderful address.
Major Premise: (in Rev. Duncan’s words, starting at 29:33) “The Fathers were best in polemics… When you read the Fathers in any area which was a matter of dispute and debate in the church of their time, they almost always got it right, and gloriously so.”
Minor Premise: The Iconoclastic controversy was the final Patristic showdown, the last great “matter of dispute and debate in the church of their time.”
Conclusion: The Fathers were gloriously right on the matter of icons.
April 29th, 2010 | 7:38 pm | #1
So because Ligon Duncan in 2010 says the church fathers were right about every issue that makes is so?
April 30th, 2010 | 7:35 am | #2
Just wanted you to know Matthew that I laughed out loud on this one. :)
April 30th, 2010 | 7:43 am | #3
actually, Duncan said (according to your own quotation, no less), “they ALMOST always got it right, and gloriously so…”
way to stress the “always” and ignore the “almost.” epic listening fail. congratulations.
April 30th, 2010 | 9:51 am | #4
Curtis – epic comment -harsh but true.
April 30th, 2010 | 10:00 am | #5
Sounds tautological, then: The Fathers got it right where they got it right, and got it wrong where they got it wrong.
Yes, that should clear things up : )
April 30th, 2010 | 10:03 am | #6
Jeff–good point. Guess we shouldn’t put as much trust in the Fathers as we should in Scripture.
April 30th, 2010 | 10:12 am | #7
If this were more than simply a blog that resembled the thunderdome and more like a reliable place for information, someone would be fired over this sham of a recap.
April 30th, 2010 | 10:24 am | #8
Curtis, one would think that “almost always” includes the result of an entire ecumenical council which was founded upon the teachings of the previous councils.
Anyhow, I think you’ve missed the humor of this post – Milliner obviously doesn’t think that Duncan actually agrees with icons, but the title of the post alone conjures up an amusing thought.
April 30th, 2010 | 11:40 am | #9
Am I missing something here, or did the blog author post this as some kind of joke to remind us how important context is? This is just sad, especially how the content of the blog post–one little part from one of the conference speakers–does not even match up with the title of this blog post–a word play on the theme of the entire conference.
April 30th, 2010 | 12:06 pm | #10
The Fathers were sometimes wrong, unlike Calvin.
April 30th, 2010 | 12:06 pm | #11
Dan, it IS a joke (which is the something that you are missing). I’m sure that Milliner holds out hope that the T4G folks will come around to his view on icons eventually, but that’s not the direct intent of this post. I’m not sure how one could miss the side-splitting humor of the notion of new Calvinists aligning themselves as “T4I(cons).”
April 30th, 2010 | 2:10 pm | #12
Arthur, Curtis, Paul, Jeff, and Jacob:
Your inability to distinguish a winsome suggestion from a treatise, or to respond in kind with any lightness of touch, makes you sound like creepy web junkies. Which I’m sure you’re not! So repent and zoom out before its too late!
Matthew:
Touche! In a tangential way, your post reminds me of a comment made by the young Romanian Orthodox theologian at Duquesne University. When a student asked him, “But, like, hey, what do the Orthodox know about the Bible?” He rolled his eyes and replied, “Dude, we wrote the Bible.”
May 1st, 2010 | 3:21 pm | #13
Once again, thank you Jean Calvin for your help.
I apologize for my creepy web-junky-like behavior. I did think it a bit strange for a seemingly bright contributor to miss such an obvious grammatical/logical point.
I certainly prefer subtle humor and satire to vitriol and bigotry.
Nevertheless, I do perceive a bit of unearned mockery towards the T4G crowd.
May 3rd, 2010 | 3:08 pm | #14
Though tongue was in cheek, respectful engagement of a serious address was my intention, not mockery.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact