T. F. Torrance on the transition to the Apostolic Fathers

[Shawn Lazar]

Hey Folks,

Has anyone read T. F. Torrance's book (doctoral dissertation) "The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers" ? What do you think of his arguments for the thesis that the N.T. view of salvation was lost by the time the Apostolic Fathers were writing?

In Him,
Shawn

[Andrew]

Hey Folks,

Has anyone read T. F. Torrance's book (doctoral dissertation) "The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers" ? What do you think of his arguments for the thesis that the N.T. view of salvation was lost by the time the Apostolic Fathers were writing?

In Him,
Shawn

Which Apostolic Fathers? We have Apostolic Fathers living today.

[Rick H.]

Dear Shawn,

I have not read this; however, I am wondering what in his argument would be unique to him viz. what has not already been said by his cohort Barth and some of the other Neo-Orthodox? Could you possibly present the key points of his work here? It is common for an undergrad student at an evangelical or fundamentalist university to be presented with a chart or a graph or sorts that shows a high point during the time of Christ and the apostles, in the history of the Church and Christian thought, to be followed by a sharp drop in the line to the bottom of the graph in the immediate years following (during the years of early patristic and monastic studies). Then the line on the graph indicates a jump/spike to another high point during the Reformation which then begins to decline after that. In this way the argument of Torrance is illustrated; however, I am wondering if you could give us a snapshot of what Torrance is arguing?

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

I have not read it, and am certainly not an expert, but permit me to take a stab at the context. Modern Protestants have a problem dealing with the "location" of the Incarnation. For Bultmann, it is an existential event (i.e. in the mind of the believer). For Barth, it is an historical event. Torrence seems to be dealing with the same, what we would term, false problem. And I think part and parcel is the tendency to view the Epistles as a mythologizing of the Incarnation, particularly the Epistle to the Hebrews. So one must remove the myths to get at the fact of the Incarnation, or so they say.

For Orthodox, the mind of the believer is not an isolated, separate entity but some "thing" which does not exist apart from God in the first place. It has no existence or reality apart from God. One must begin with a proper philosophical/theological anthropology before we can have any proper understanding of God Incarnate. And this is something that Protestants in general avoid. The "event" of the Incarnation is in the meeting place between God and Man, the in between or intermediate realm. With a proper understanding that man participates in all levels of the divine-human hierarchy, this is not such a leap. But Protestantism begins with man as utterly depraved, fallen, and completely distinct from God in every way, and the idea of participation in God is alien and foreign. You will not find any doctrine of deification or union with God in Torrence or other "Reformed" theologians, unless they are out on the New Age fringe. It is all about repairing the damage caused by the Fall. Now, I am sure Torrence is more sophisticated than that and that I am probably not doing him justice. This is simply background.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Which Apostolic Fathers? We have Apostolic Fathers living today.

The title 'Apostolic Fathers' refers to the collection of theologian-writers of the first and second centuries, whose writing is similar in many regards to the epistolary writings of the apostles themselves.

Included under this title are Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias the Elder; as well as the authors of the Didache, and the Epistle of Barnabas (sometimes called Barnabas of Alexandria). The author of the Shepherd of Hermas is sometimes also included in the listing.

It is in this sense a closed group with a very specific definition (notwithstanding the fact that all fathers are apostolic; as a title it refers to a specific collection of writings and writers from the 1st/2nd centuries).

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Michael Stickles]

For those (like me) who don't have access to a copy of the book, here are some excerpts I found on the web:


Thomas F. Torrance, in his The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (see pgs 137-141) – whose entire work is an inquiry into the literature of the apostolic fathers, that is to say, into the Didache of the Twelve Apostles, the First Epistle of Clement, the Epistles of Ignatius, the Epistle of Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Second Epistle of Clement (includes all the Patristic books that Wallace references), in order to discern how and why such a great divergence away from the teaching of the New Testament occurred in their understanding of salvation – concludes his research by saying: “In the Apostolic Fathers grace did not have [the] radical character [that it had in the New Testament]. The great presupposition of the Christian life, for them, was not a deed of decisive significance that cut across human life and set it on a wholly new basis grounded upon the self-giving of God. What took absolute precedence was God’s call to a new life in obedience to revealed truth. Grace, as far as it was grasped, was subsidiary to that. And so religion was thought of primarily in terms of man’s acts toward God, in the striving toward justification, much less in terms of God’s acts for man which put him in the right with God once and for all.”

Torrance continues, “In the Apostolic Fathers grace lost its radical character. They developed a doctrine of salvation by works of righteousness... A Christian ethic was codified, and the charismatic life under the constraining love of Christ [was] reduced to rules and precepts. The centre of gravity was shifted from the mainspring of the Christian life in the person of Christ Himself to the periphery of outward conformity and daily behaviour.”

“In the Apostolic Fathers grace became related to the continuance of the Christian life, rather than to the decisive motion of God's love as the presupposition of the whole Christian life... Grace became an ad hoc matter, an aid to the main work of sanctification, a donum superadditum. In other words, grace was something given by God to those who worthily strive after righteousness to enable them to attain their end … Grace was taken under the wing of the Church in an official way...as the depository of pneumatic grace, dispensed in sacramentalist fashion. The Church...possessed the means of grace."

“What facilitated the syncretism of Judaism and Hellenism was the idea, common in principle to both, of self-justification, but it was Christianity which provided the sphere in which the two could come together, for as opposed to Hellenism it brought the principle of revelation, and as opposed to Judaism it did away with the ceremonial law. As opposed to both, the Gospel of Christianity was so astounding just because it taught a doctrine of justification by grace alone. This was unpalatable to both sides. Judaism refused to accept it because of its revolutionary character and its attitude to the law. Hellenism simply failed to see the New Testament problems. Both of these attitudes to grace are found in the Apostolic Fathers. Their theology represents a corrosion of the faith both from the side of Judaism and from the side of Hellenism, because the basic significance of grace was not grasped.”


The other excerpts were in a PDF file called Apostolic Fathers: Key Issues and their Understanding of Grace (http://www.scriptureunlocked.com/papers/apostolicfathers.pdf). Torrance's view is covered from page 7 through the top of page 9. I didn't just copy that section because there's more of interest in there, but one bit really caught my attention (I don't think I'll need to elaborate on why):




According to Torrance, the Church Fathers were not opposed to the issue of grace as much as they were misguided in their understanding of grace. Thus it resulted in their failure to grasp the [I]significance of the death of Christ. Hence they concentrated not on what Christ accomplished once-and-for-all, but on the new way Christ showed them how to live. Christianity as a result became a set of rules.


In Christ,
Mike

[Mourad Mankarios]

Hey Folks,

Has anyone read T. F. Torrance's book (doctoral dissertation) "The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers" ? What do you think of his arguments for the thesis that the N.T. view of salvation was lost by the time the Apostolic Fathers were writing?

In Him,
Shawn

This does not make any sense at all as it was the Apostolic Fathers along with later fathers who compiled the NT itself, perhaps the only thing that Christians universally can agree upon without argument, ie the books of the NT, though there is much debate over interpretation. Therefore, it was these fathers who in compiling our modern day Bible breathed forth their message through the books of the Bible that they compiled. Those that were contrary to their beliefs were discarded while those that were consistent with the faith were upheld.

Furthermore, early Christianity is replete with a diversity of beliefs, sects and groups who had varying opinions on Jesus, the Bible and God. It seems that if Torrence is correct then there would be some literature evident of the such such as there is of the above, or there would at least be references in the fathers to the existence of the above or at least exegesis on scripture which countered assumedly false interpretations. However, to the best of my knowledge the struggle regarding an Orthodox understanding of grace did not come till much later namely in the persons of St Augustine and St John Cassian.

It seems that the argument Torrence presents is one commonly made by Protestants though not limited to the Protestants as it is a belief commonly propounded by many other groups such as the Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc, etc, etc, ie that age old argument that the faith was so corrupted and that therefore the leaders of these groups were required to reinstate the old faith based on revelation or simply personal inspiration.

[Shawn Lazar]

Thanks for posting those excerpts, Mike. That provides a nice summary of Torrance's argument. Namely, that the centrality of the work and person of Christ, and the gracious nature of God's self-giving to mankind, is more or less absent in the Apostolic Fathers who view the Chrsitian life as a modified form of Judaism largely consisting of laws to be obeyed. That is not to question their holiness or sincerity, of course.

For anyone interested, as I'm sure you all are, Fr. Andrew Louth (Durham) re-edited a collection of the Apostolic Fathers for Penguin called "Early Christian Writings" I think. Its a great collection.

Admittedly, this was Torrance's earliest work, written in his early to mid twenties. He may have changed his mind later on. I don't know. And I don't think he would have ascribed to some of the characterization of Protestant views of Church History mentioned here. If I'm not mistaken, he was ordained an (honorary?) deacon in the Orthodox church. And he was known as a Patristic scholar (hence his dissertation and many other works such as his The Trinitarian Faith).

In any case, I raised the question because I wonder whether a more nuanced, or sympathetic approach to the Apostolic Fathers would be possible. I'm looking around for a D.Th. project, and was wondering if that could be the one. Rather than begin by interpreting the apostolic fathers in light of a Reformed reading of Paul, perhaps a different starting point would end in different conclusions. For instance, I was wondering if the Apostolic Fathers' approach to grace would make more sense in light of the so-called New Perspective on Paul (which seems to be more sympathetic to Orthodox theology)? I don't know.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Interesting. I have NEVER heard of an "honorary" Deacon or any other kind of clergy. I suppose some people consider a "subdeacon" to be something of an "honorary", but I simply cannot imagine someone who is not Orthodox being considered Orthodox clergy, even "honorary". I've only been Orthodox for 31 years, so perhaps I just haven't been "around", but I really would like to hear more details on that.

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren!

Herman you are right!

Shawn you can read all about this man who was never Orthodox in his whole life here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_F._Torrance

And Shawn, the Apostolic Fathers are very good to deliver any kind of material for a D.Th. project, but discuss it with your deacon and probably look here:

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/

This man really knows the Fathers and has wrote a great many books about them, he will be a better inspiration!
Gods blessing for your project.

In Christ, Nicolaj

[Owen Jones]

Well, there seems to be a contradiction between Torrence, et al, and Jesus' words. His actual words are all about how we are to live. Protestants generally regard the Orthodox/Catholic emphasis on virtue as works righteousness.

[Shawn Lazar]

I will have to search the library for the reference to Torrance becoming an honorary deacon in the Orthodox church. (Wikipedia, of course, is a poor source of information.) I suspect it was mentioned in his biography by McGrath or in the book collecting the various articles he wrote when the Reformed and Orthodox churches issued a joint statement on the Trinity ("Agreed Statement on the Holy Trinity" 1985-1993). But I could be mistaken about that. I'll check it out and get back to this post.

In any case, it does seem as though there is tremendous disjunction between the faith of apostles and the apostolic fathers where grace is concerned. It becomes all the more noticeable when you read Irenaeus and Athanasius who were both very Christocentric in their theology, and therefore more like the apostles themselves.

[Owen Jones]

Huh???

The fundamental Protestant thesis is that almost immediately in the early Church, it was polluted by Greek philosophic mysticism and the true Church went underground and became invisible, only to become visible in the 15th Century in Germany! And the the Reformers wanted to purge any hint of mysticism from the Church and return it to what they perceived to be its its Jewish roots. This is the fundamental mythology of Protestantism that we cannot avoid in any discussion. There are those who go so far as to say that the later Epistles are all examples of this, including the so-called Catholic Epistles, including Hebrews, none of which, they argue, could have possibly have been written by Paul. Colossians I think is particularly galling for its sacramental mysticism. And so the basis of Protestant theology is to have a "right relationship" with Christ, both in the legal sense and in the psychological sense, because there is no such thing as communion with Christ, i.e. union with God. Impossible. It's just not Judaic. And the whole business with deification is nothing but Platonic mysticism.

[Shawn Lazar]

To be absolutely honest, I've never heard of that "fundamental thesis" before. Maybe that is more of a caricature than an accurate representation of Protestantism (in much the same way that Protestants will caricaturize the Orthodox position)? Certainly it is not an accurate picture of the Reformers' own beliefs, whose writings are filled with citations from the Fathers. Read Calvin's Institutes, for example.

[Father David Moser]

To be absolutely honest, I've never heard of that "fundamental thesis" before. Maybe that is more of a caricature than an accurate representation of Protestantism (in much the same way that Protestants will caricaturize the Orthodox position)? Certainly it is not an accurate picture of the Reformers' own beliefs, whose writings are filled with citations from the Fathers. Read Calvin's Institutes, for example.

As a former member of an Evangelical Protestant congregation and a graduate of a non-denominational Protestant University, I will say that I heard this assumption quite frequently. The "caricature" was the belief that Church history went something like, "St John the Evangelist died and Martin Luther was born" The presumption was that as soon as the last apostles left the scene, nothing important happened and the Church lost its zeal and vitality and began to slide more and more into error and that slide was not corrected until the reformation. Oh, and most protestants don't really know what the reformers taught - they are shocked to discover, for example, that many of them (Luther, Calvin, etc) held to the ever-virginity of Mary (unlike today's romanticized belief that after the birth of Christ, the young very-much-in-love newlywed couple Joseph and Mary resumed their romance and lived happily ever after and had many other children).

This is the same assumption that Joseph Smith, many centuries later, developed to found the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons).

Fr David Moser

[Shawn Lazar]

Fr Moser, the poster previous to yours claimed that the fundamental assumption of Protestantism includes the idea that the church was polluted with greek mysticism, that communion with God is impossible, and that some of the N.T. writings are rejected for these reasons. I've never heard anything of the kind. I've attended three evangelical seminaries - in Amsterdam, Texas and Boston, and nowhere have I ever heard anything like that. The Fathers were always treated with respect.

But as you say, there is this idea, among some evangelicals (particularly Baptists and Charismatics) that the church passed through a kind of dark ages between the apostles and the Reformation. But is that belief limited to Protestants? Don't the Orthodox agree? At least with respect to the Western church being affected with Roman legalism, nominalism, manicheism, etc, and generally losing its Orthodoxy sometime beginning with Augstine, and culminating in the great schism. In fact, someone just recently gave me a tract called "River of Fire" that condemns the West in the strongest possible terms, goin so far as to claim that the fundamental Western theological thesis was that God is the source of sin which idea consequently gave birth to atheism!!! I'm sure whoever wrote that is part of the fringe element of Orthodoxy... but so are the Protestants who view church history in such a stark light.

[Father David Moser]

But as you say, there is this idea, among some evangelicals (particularly Baptists and Charismatics) that the church passed through a kind of dark ages between the apostles and the Reformation. But is that belief limited to Protestants? Don't the Orthodox agree?

Heavens no! Some of the greatest luminaries of the Church lived and wrote during that time - The three hierarchs, St John Chrysostom, St Basil the Great, St Gregory the Theologian; St Photius; St. Gregory Palamas, Nicholas Cabasilas, St Mark of Ephesus, St Maximus the Confessor, ... just to name a few. Then there were those whose lives place them among the greatest saints of history, St Nicholas, St Demetrios, St George, St Anthony, and so on. And the Equals-to-the Apostles Mary Magdalene, Nina, Averky, Methodius and Kyrill, etc. This was also the time of the Ecumenical Councils by which the great basic heresies were countered and eliminated from the Church (heresies which continue to "pop up" in "new clothes" even today) and the establishment of the canon of Scripture. The saints who lived and struggled during this period easily make the post apostolic, Constantinoplian period arguably the "golden age" of the Church.


At least with respect to the Western church being affected ... and culminating in the great schism.

Yes, it is true that while the Church enjoyed a "golden age" that demonic forces also were violently active such that the western Church became infected with those ills that led to the schism (and indeed that is something that the Church mourns) - but then you must also recall that the western Church and Rome was considered to be the "standard" of the Orthodox faith up into about the 8th century and when she did fall away from the Church, she only represented one of the 5 patriarchates.

Fr David Moser

[M.C. Steenberg]

Above, Mr Lazar wrote:



In any case, it does seem as though there is tremendous disjunction between the faith of apostles and the apostolic fathers where grace is concerned. It becomes all the more noticeable when you read Irenaeus and Athanasius who were both very Christocentric in their theology, and therefore more like the apostles themselves.

I find this startling, as someone who spends a great deal of time in this historical period. I'd be very grateful if you could provide some specific textual examples of the kind of disjunction you envisage. I cannot say as I have ever had cause to interpret their relationship in this way.

Clement of Rome is often thought to have known St Peter; his writings, though, are especially Pauline. I cannot imagine viewing him as not Christocentric in focus. His epistle to the Corinthians is profoundly Christological.

Similarly Ignatius - though perhaps here even moreso. And in Ignatius we find the mystery of Christ present in martyric sacrifice - ruminating, as it were, on the same themes as 1 and 2 Peter.

As to the slightly later writers - Irenaeus and Athanasius were mentioned - Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp, one of the apostolic fathers, and harks back to Polycarp's teachings constantly. He also quotes Ignatius, as well as the Shepherd of Hermas, for their Christological focus on creation and resurrection.

I don't really think this notion of a disjunction can be sustained (though, as above, I would invite some textual examples of how you perceive it in their writings). Rather, it seems very clear to me that the apostolic fathers reflect a continuation of reflection on the Christian mystery that is wholly in line with that of the NT and the later second-century writers.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Anthony]

To be absolutely honest, I've never heard of that "fundamental thesis" before. Maybe that is more of a caricature than an accurate representation of Protestantism (in much the same way that Protestants will caricaturize the Orthodox position)? Certainly it is not an accurate picture of the Reformers' own beliefs, whose writings are filled with citations from the Fathers. Read Calvin's Institutes, for example.

I'm not sure it is my place to chip into this discussion, but I think Owen is referring to a common theme in continental Protestant scholarship since the so-called Enlightenment. According to this, the second-century church is an unhappy compromise between the true Gospel (basically Romans and Galatians as read through the eyes of Luther) and a Judaeo-Christian reaction, the resulting hotch-potch being termed "early Catholicism". When more was discovered about Greco-Roman mystery religions, they were also added to the equation (often with little regard for accurate dating).

This strand of thought keeps popping up (though I thought it had been discredited - cf. Fr Matthew's last post), and does perhaps underlie the Torrance article quoted at the start of this thread.

Incidentally, I believe some of Torrance's students are now Orthodox, and speak with respect of his influence on their thought. As one poster has already commented, this was quite likely an early piece of work.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I used to have a Protestant Bible Commentary that defined the "major faiths" this way:

Roman Catholicism: Early Christianity mixed with Roman paganism.

[sic]Greek Catholicism (I believe they meant Eastern Orthodox): Early Christianity mixed with Greek paganism.

Protestantism: Early Christianity without the paganism!

Yes, this believe is rife within many, many strains of Protestantism.

And I have to say that I too, would be interested in exactly HOW the Early Church Fathers differed "radically" from what the Apostles taught. To be honest I think this is nothing more than Protestantism defending the definition above. It is the recognition that if the Church "got it wrong", then it did so very early on, within a generation of the Apostles. What we see here is simple projection. The Protestants came up with what they wanted the Gospels to say, and then ignored anyone who disagreed with them, the most egregious being the Fathers of the Church who were simply repeating on what they had been taught BY THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES. Since this differs with what Protestantism teaches, then ergo, it MUST be wrong, and a reason why must be developed.

All analysis is objective, as long as you know what the objective is....

[Shawn Lazar]

Dear MC Steenberg,

I think Torrance would agree with you where Ignatius and Clement are concerned. I just returned my copy of his work to the library so I don't have it in front of me. But of the Apostolic Fathers he cited those two as being more Christocentric than the others, though still less Christocentric than the Apostles themselves.

But consider, for example, the Didache, which makes little reference to Christ at all. It is mostly a moralistic tract which Torrance points to as evidence of failing to embody the Christ-centered gospel of the Apostles. But as for his complete argument you (and anyone else) would have to read Torrance for yourself. I really haven't studied the issue in depth, which is why I posted here in the first place to see if anyone else had.

-Shawn

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Lazar and others,


as for [Torrance's] complete argument you (and anyone else) would have to read Torrance for yourself. I really haven't studied the issue in depth, which is why I posted here in the first place to see if anyone else had.

Torrance's book is a fairly standard volume on the apostolic fathers, by which I mean to say that it forms part of the standard bibliography students would be expected to read when studying them at most institutions. It is an old book, which means it's had plenty of time to work its way on to reading lists; and more, it is in many ways a work of solid scholarship. His supposition of the loss of Christological / grace-centred focus has always been challenged, from the very first. Part of that criticism has centred in his importing into the era an almost pre-supposed loss or falling away from 'New Testament' emphases (NT in quotation marks there, since it did not yet exist), as well as creating an incongruity between earlier and later writers, that those writers themselves show no signs of having felt (Irenaeus, for example, quotes both Ignatius and Hermas in rather the same way he quotes Paul or John).

In response to my previous post in this thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=53368&postcount=18), you wrote:


I think Torrance would agree with you where Ignatius and Clement are concerned. I just returned my copy of his work to the library so I don't have it in front of me. But of the Apostolic Fathers he cited those two as being more Christocentric than the others, though still less Christocentric than the Apostles themselves.

And given that their output constitutes roughly two-thirds of the entire corpus usually called the apostolic fathers', this is saying something!


But consider, for example, the Didache, which makes little reference to Christ at all. It is mostly a moralistic tract which Torrance points to as evidence of failing to embody the Christ-centered gospel of the Apostles.

The same could be said of the New Testament epistle of James, which only mentions Jesus twice: once in the standard opening, the other as a title for his recipients ('Listen, you who believe in Jesus Christ...').

It is a fallacy to suggest (and I think this one of Torrance's flaws) that discussions are only centred on Christ and grace if they speak explicitly about these. If anything, to focus on the actual language of grace is not 'commonly apostolic', but in fact specifically -- and in some sense, uniquely -- Pauline. That was his habit. Other NT writers clearly emphasise and consider the grace of God, but often not through a discussion of grace as such; rather, through considerations of grace as encountered in the work and words of Christ (and interestingly, 'grace' is a word Christ does not appear ever to have used).

This is precisely what is found, for example, in the Didache. This text is essentially an extended practical / pastoral reflection on the words and example of Christ, as they ought to be incorporated into personal and communal Christian living. It is not simply a moralising tract. When one understands this as its nature and aim, one finds that it is in fact deeply Christologically significant. It contains, for example, reflections on:
Christ's commandment to love the neighbour;
Christ as present in the ministry of his teachers;
Perfection in the yoke of Christ; forgiveness when it is not taken up fully;
Baptism;
The revelation of the Seed of David in Christ;
Christ as servant of the Father's will;
Jesus Christ as the revelation of God;
Christ as the Power of the Father; encountered in the Eucharist;
The Son as nourisher of all creation;
Explicit claim of Christ as God, Son of David;
The Parousia (second-coming of Christ)The constant reference of the Didache is Christ, and particularly Christ's examples in the Gospels (which are mentioned several times). The name 'Jesus' and the title 'Christ' are used several times; but by and large the text prefers to call him 'Lord' and 'Servant' - themselves important Christological terms.

I see no way of interpreting this as anything other than a deeply Christological text, unless one wishes to force a division between pastoral teaching and Christology (which would be quite the fallacy itself).

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Shawn Lazar]

Ahh, thank you! That certainly clears things up for me! I'll have to go a re-read Torrance and the Fathers together with that in mind.

In Him,
Shawn

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Further to discussions on the apostolic fathers, I've pulled together some references from the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, to demonstrate just how much Christological material is found in his letters.

Please note that, as the bible referencing system in the forum will automatically convert Eph, Phil, and Rom abbreviations to links to the NT books of Ephesians, Philippians and Romans; I have side-stepped this by abbreviating all Ignatius' letters with 'Ad' - for 'To'; so 'AdEph' for 'To the Ephesians', 'AdRom' for 'To the Romans', etc. So the references in this listing are all from the epistles of Ignatius, as follows: AdEph: to the Ephesians; AdMagn: to the Magnesians; AdRom: to the Romans; AdSmyr: to the Smyrnians; AdTrall: to the Trallians; AdPhil: to the Philadelphians; and his epistle To Polycarp. All are from the shorter recensions of these letters, which are the most authentic.

The divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is ‘joined to the Father’ in unity (AdEph 5)
Was ‘with the Father before the ages (AdMagn 6)
Does nothing without the Father (AdMagn 7)
Son of the Father, is his eternal Word, ‘not proceeding forth from silence’ (AdMagn 8)
His union to the Father, and the Spirit’s union to him, reveals the union man can have with God in Christ (AdMagn 13; AdPhil 7)
Most fully revealed in his resurrection; most visible in his invisible union with the Father (AdRom 3)
He is the mouth through which the Father has spoken (AdRom 8)
Christ is the manifested will of the Father (AdEph 3); is the knowledge of God the Father (AdEph 17)
Reverence to Jesus is reverence to God (AdEph 7)

God is his Father, he is man’s; the ‘bishop of us all’ (AdMagn 3)
Faith in Christ makes one not a ‘man-pleaser’ but a ‘God-pleaser’ (AdRom 2)
Jesus is God, who gives wisdom (AdSmyr 1)
Christ = ‘God existing in the flesh’ [God and man] (AdEph 7)

‘God himself, manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life’ (AdEph 19)
‘Of Mary and of God’; first possible and then impossible; made and unmade (AdEph 7); the invisible made visible, impassible made passible (To Polycarp 3)
‘Our God, according to the appointment of God’, born of Mary and the Holy Spirit (AdEph 18; AdSmyr 1)
Both Son of Man and Son of God (AdEph 20)
Jesus truly human, existing in genuine history (AdTrall 9)
Both flesh and spirit (AdSmyr 1)
After the resurrection, Christ still possessed his flesh—‘and so he does now’, even though he is also ‘spiritually united to the Father’ (AdSmyr 3)
Christ is the suffering God (AdEph 11)

Anti-docetism: Those who claim he only seemed to suffer are in error; they make a mockery of the martyrs (AdTrall 10)
The passion reveals truth; heresy is discord with the passion of Christ (AdPhil 3)
Jesus Christ as priest and sacrifice

Jesus is the true Law, according to which the prophets spoke (AdMagn 8, 9; AdPhil 9)
He stands ‘in the place of all that is ancient’: for the Law there is now the cross, the death, the resurrection and faith in him (AdPhil 8)
Christ is the Great High Priest (AdPhil 9)

The ‘door to the Father, by which enter in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’—and all others, from the ancient covenant and the Church (AdPhil 9)
Perfector and sanctifier of obedient humanity (AdEph 2, 3; AdSmyr 4)
Christ is teacher, both in word and silence (AdEph 15)
Jesus’ death and resurrection raise up man to new life (AdMagn 9, 11; AdSmyr 2)

Christ, by Cross, lifts up humanity to the Father (with the Holy Spirit) (AdEph 9)
His death causes man to escape death (AdTrall 2)
Christ calls humanity to himself through his cross; it is the tool producing union (AdTrall 11, AdSmyr 1)
In martyrdom, one is united to Christ’s death and life; becomes the ‘wheat’ that Christ turns to bread [Eucharistic overtones] (AdRom 4, 6)
Man is to be an imitator of the passion of his God (AdRom 6)
Salvation = union with Jesus Christ (AdPhil 5)
Christ an offering and sacrifice to God (AdEph 1)
Jesus is the ‘new man’ (AdEph 20)
Jesus Christ and Christian encounter

Christ dwells in Christians as in a temple; he is God (AdEph 15, AdMagn 12)
This union perfected in love, and readiness to ‘die into his passion’ (AdMagn 5)
Christian life is an ‘intimate union with Jesus Christ our God’ (AdTrall 7, AdSmyr 12)
Baptised, purifying the water by which others are now united to him (AdEph 18)
Christ is, in the bread of the Eucharist, ‘the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying’ (AdEph 20)

In him faithful have communion in both flesh and blood of Jesus Christ (AdMagn 1)
He is ‘the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became afterwards the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire to drink of God, namely his blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life’ (AdRom 7)
There is only one Eucharist, as Christ has but one flesh and one blood (AdPhil 4)
In Eucharist is physician of flesh and spirit (AdEph 7-10)
Those who deny the blood of Christ in the Eucharist are far from salvation (AdSmyr 6, 7)
INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Following on from my listing of Christological themes in Ignatius' epistles (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=53414&postcount=24) yesterday, and reference to similar themes in the Didache (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=53398&postcount=22) the day before, I've done a similar listing of Christological themes in the epistle of St Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. It is a shorter listing than of Ignatius, but of course we've only one epistle by Clement, rather than a library by Ignatius.

All references below are to chapters in the First Epistle of St Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (the so-called 'second epistle' of Clement to the Corinthians is spurious).

The divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ

Jesus ‘preaches the Gospel from God’, just as the apostles preach it from him (42)
Christ ‘therefore sent from God’, as the apostles sent from him (42)
This an ‘orderly appointment’, made according to the will of God (42)
Jesus Christ ‘chosen’ by God, and through him man chosen to be ‘a peculiar people’ (58)
Christ speaks by the Spirit (22)
Lord comes in ‘lowly condition’ as man, having humbled himself (16)

Christ descended from Abraham ‘according to the flesh’ (32)
Redemption offered in Christ

Christ is ‘High priest of all our offerings’ (36)
Defender and helper of human infirmity (36)
Through him man looks up to the heights of heaven (36)
By him eyes are opened and understanding of God blossoms (36)
Man’s ‘high priest and protector’ (58)
Emphasis on blood of Christ, shed for salvation, precious to the Father (7)

Cf. ‘scarlet thread’ of Rahab: indicates Christ’s blood (12)
On account ‘of the love he bore us’, Jesus gave his blood for man ‘by the will of God’ (50)
Gave his flesh for man’s flesh, his soul for man’s souls (50)
Jesus brings humanity to the Father’s compassions (20)
The head and preserver of the Christian Body – the Church (37, 38)INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Aidan Kimel]

Thomas Torrance was no ordinary Protestant. He read deeply in the Church Fathers, particularly the Alexandrians, as well evidenced in his book *The Trinitarian Faith*. Sadly, this book, though well reviewed by Western patristic scholars, e.g., Robert Wilken, has been ignored by Eastern scholars.

Torrance's book on the apostolic fathers was an early book, written when he was deep in the thought of Barth. I do not know if he ever softened in his judgment on them.

Torrance was also a key figure in the Reformed-Orthodox dialogue. His hand is evident in the 1992 agreement on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity:

http://www.warc.ch/dt/erl1/13.html

I met with him at Princeton perhaps 20 years ago. I remember him speaking warmly of the Reformed-Orthodox dialogue. He also shared with me the story of how he was consecrated a proto-presbyter by Methodios Fouyas, who at that time was Archbishop of Ethiopia & Aksum. Years later I confirmed this event with Torrance's son Iain. It is mentioned in an online biography of Torrance:

http://www.tftorrance.org/bio.php

No Orthodox has been able to explain to me what this means, but I know that Tom was profoundly moved and honored. Evidently, the Orthodox who knew and worked with him felt a deep spiritual bond with him. Tom told me that one Orthodox bishop (perhaps it was Methodios--I do not recall) thanked him for "teaching us the Fathers," with special reference to Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria.

[Olga]

Being made an "honorary protopresbyter" is meaningless and of little or no consequence, canonical or otherwise, as far as Orthodoxy is concerned.

[Paul Cowan]

My priest introduced me to our Bishop as his proto-subdeacon. I almost said, whoa, slow down when did I agree to almost be ordained? I think he was testing me to see if I would bite. hummm.

Paul

[Aidan Kimel]

Being made an "honorary protopresbyter" is meaningless and of little or no consequence, canonical or otherwise, as far as Orthodoxy is concerned.

I did not use the word "honorary." All I know is that a ceremony of some kind was celebrated, led by Metropolitan Methodios, in which he was designated or consecrated or ordained or received or recognized or whatever, a "Protopresbyter." The obiturary for Torrance in the Church Times also notes the event: "His deep engagement with the Greek Orthodox tradition led to his designation as a Protopresbyter in the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 1973, an honour of which he was particularly proud." Perhaps what happened was without precedence. I do not know. But a special honor of some sort was bestowed upon Dr Torrance.

[Aidan Kimel]

I just found this citation about T. F. Torrance from a biographical article written by his brother:

"Earlier in 1954 he [Thomas Torrance] had called for discussions within the Orthodox Communion between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian or 'monophysite' theologians. Agreement between them was eventually reached early in 1973. Tom was then invited to Addis Ababa by Methodios the Greek Orthodox archbishop of Axum, the see in Ethiopia founded by Athanasius, to join in commemorating the death of Athanasius in 373, and in celebrating the theological agreement Tom had initiated. There he was consecrated by Methodios as a presbyter of the Greek Orthodox Church, and given the honorary title of protopresbyter. Earlier in 1970, at a session of the General Assembly in Edinburgh, the patriarch of Alexandria had conferred on him the Cross of St. Mark, which was followed in 1977 by Tom's being given the Cross of Thyateira by the Greek orthodox archbishop in London."

(David W. Torrance, "Thomas Forsyth Torrance: Minister of the Gospel, Pastor, and Evangelical Theologian," in *The Promise of Trinitarian Theology* [2002], ed. Elmer Colyer, pp. 23-24)

Make of it as you will. I always thought it sounded like a very "Orthodox" thing to do.

[Olga]

Was Torrance ever baptised (or otherwise canonically received, e.g. by chrismation) into the Orthodox Church? If so, I stand corrected. If not, this bestowing of the title of presbyter, honorary or not, is meaningless, as he would not be entitled to serve as an Orthodox priest. The crosses of Thyateira and St Mark mentioned are simply honours which can be conferred to (almost) anyone, akin to British imperial honours. Think of the honorary knighthood conferred to, for instance, Bob Geldof. As he is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, he is not technically entitled (despite the tendencies of the British popular press) to call himself Sir Robert in any official capacity.

Some might understandably have the view that this title conferred on Torrance is the equivalent of an honorary degree conferred by a university to a prominent public figure, and therefore cannot see the harm in conferring an honorary clerical (priestly/hierarchical) position. Not so, at least not in the Orthodox world. The Orthodox do not have "honorary priests", any more than "honorary bishops".

[Herman Blaydoe]

Many strange extraordinary things were going on.

I guess it is "nice" that he was "honored", I believe that reflects well on him as a person, but in that an Orthodox priest has no authority apart from his bishop, that he is merely an extension of the bishop, I really cannot understand what an "honorary" protopresbyter could possibly be. I think that makes him rather unique in Orthodox history if he was not otherwise accepted in the Orthodox Church. The main reason for the priest is to celebrate the Eucharist. A priest who cannot celebrate the Eucharist is redundancy personified.

But unless he repudiated his earlier views of the Fathers, it simply makes no sense whatsoever. Whatever it was, it was NOT Orthodox.

Too much for this bear of little brain to process.

Herman the Pooh

[Father David Moser]

I have seen a number of non-Orthodox honored for their labors which had some benefit for the Orthodox Church. Sometimes those honors are completely misunderstood - even by the best scholars. I had a Greek language professor - a very nice man and very learned in Greek language and culture - who would visit Greece and the Middle East yearly during holiday breaks. Once he came back and told us how he had "received communion" in an Orthodox Church. From his description of events he had received only a piece of the antidoron such as is given to all the faithful as they come up to kiss the cross. This man, despite his long familiarity with Orthodox people and the Greek language, misunderstood what he had been given by interpreting his experiences through his Protestant experience. He was not a fool, nor was he stupid - he just misunderstood.

I can't say what exactly happened to Mr Torrance, however, I do know that he could not have been ordained to the priesthood unless he had first converted to Orthodoxy. And even if that were the case through some strange misunderstanding, if he renounced his Orthodox faith by returning to his former confession, then the priesthood would have been lost in any case. One of the narrative comments about this "award" was that he was "consecrated" a presbyter and later given the honor of the title "proto-presbyter". That description itself indicates that one is not at all familiar with the way these things are done. A priest is consecrated just prior to the consecration of the Holy Mysteries - after the Great Entrance. A proto-presbyter is not simply an "honorary" title but is a rank of the priesthood and is bestowed upon the priest during the small entrance. A person cannot be made a priest and proto-presbyter in the same liturgy. This "timing" issue also applies even more strongly because in Orthodox practice a man cannot be ordained a priest who has not first been ordained a deacon. The ordination to the diaconate takes place after the consecration of the gifts, before the distribution of Holy Communion. Thus it is not possible for a person to be ordained to the diaconate and to the priesthood in a single liturgy. This small confusion of terms and events makes me think that whatever was done was gravely misunderstood by the non-Orthodox participants.

It seems to me that Mr Torrance was indeed honored and quite revered by his Orthodox colleagues, but whatever honor was bestowed had to have been misunderstood, despite his learning and expertise.

Fr David Moser

[Sacha]

I have read this thread with great interest and was wondering if anyone had any book recommendations on the topic of grace in the apostolic Fathers' writing. Is there an Orthodox book or article that delves into the Fathers' teaching on grace? (directly or indirectly addressing the charges made by TF Torrance and many protestants regarding a supposed 'loss of grace' in the transition between the apostles and the Fathers)

I know that Fr Dragas studied under him but it does not seem that this was addressed by him?

[Sacha]

Anyone?

Shawn you still around?

[Kosta]

From the excerpts provided of Mr Torrance book, i fail to see what his evidence is to support his thesis. Why would he use the Didache to prove his point when the Didache is a New Testament era book? Most scholar agree its a late 1st century writing so using that book would disprove his point.

[Olga]

Anyone?

Shawn you still around?

Sacha, it seems that Shawn has not logged in here since July last year.

[Sacha]

From the excerpts provided of Mr Torrance book, i fail to see what his evidence is to support his thesis. Why would he use the Didache to prove his point when the Didache is a New Testament era book? Most scholar agree its a late 1st century writing so using that book would disprove his point.

Yes, I agree. Is there any article or book on Orthodoxy that specifically looks at the understanding of grace in the apostolic fathers?

[Bryan J. Maloney]

It is a matter of dogmatic faith among protestant-type groups that the Church completely or almost completely abandoned the true faith as soon as the Apostles fell asleep in the Lord, perhaps even before then. There were no or nearly no right-believing Christians from that point in history until the Reformation, at which point perfect, true, and flawless knowledge was restored. Their interpretation of Church history, patristics, etc. demands that this dogma be accepted and then everything "interpreted" on that basis.

[Michael Stickles]

It is a matter of dogmatic faith among protestant-type groups that the Church completely or almost completely abandoned the true faith as soon as the Apostles fell asleep in the Lord, perhaps even before then. There were no or nearly no right-believing Christians from that point in history until the Reformation, at which point perfect, true, and flawless knowledge was restored. Their interpretation of Church history, patristics, etc. demands that this dogma be accepted and then everything "interpreted" on that basis.

I don't believe most hold to the concept that "perfect, true, and flawless knowledge was restored" at the Reformation (since their doctrine tends to differ, sometimes radically, from that of the reformers), but the rest is pretty much true. A book we used to have on Church history written from a Protestant perspective actually gave the title "The Decline of the Church" to the chapter on the three or four centuries after 100AD. I do think, though, that this interpretation of history is actually a conclusion rather than a premise. If you start with the Scriptures and a sola scriptura mindset, and through those come to a set of doctrinal beliefs which differ greatly from the Orthodox belief as held and taught by the Fathers, you will be forced to conclude that either your beliefs are wrong, or the Fathers were wrong. And the very nature of sola scriptura reasoning makes it almost inevitable that you'll reach the latter conclusion.