Why Don’t the Fathers Teach Forensic Justification?
I have a question I'd like to submit to Eric Svendsen. If forensic justifiaction is so clearly taught in Scripture, why is the concept entirely missing from the Church Fathers?
There are a lot of things clearly taught in the Scriptures that are not found in the writings of the church fathers. Without delving into the fathers at all—nor agreeing or disagreeing with your statement—it needs to be said here that the fathers do not determine truth; only Scripture does that. Where does Scripture say we should look to the post-apostolic writings to ascertain the meaning of the New Testament? So, even if the fathers don’t address the issue, that is no reason to to conclude that Scripture isn’t clear on the issue—it is.
Your assumption that the teaching of the New Testament needs to be validated by the church fathers before we can trust it betrays your affiliation—you are Roman Catholic. However, your assumption is just that—merely an assumption. Moreover, one can just as easily turn the tables around on this one; if dikaioo ("to justify") means "to make one righteous" then why is THAT concept entirely missing from both Scripture AND the fathers?
Back to Roman Catholic Corner