conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

And the point is ...? We can correct long standing interpretations, but only if we can find a way to reinterpret the Scripture and call it a correction? Sort of shoots the whole historical narrative defense in the foot. Also, can I interpret Micah's phrasing to mean that Calvin was simply an opportunist, using Chrysostom only when it suited his agenda?

To use a phrase a friend of mine once coined, this search for authenticity appears to be vague, but in reality it is meaningless. Which has always been my point about the weight given to the historical interpretations of the Church, simply because they were closer in time to the source.

LOL

I wrote these lines. They are from my thesis. And they simply state what Calvin did. That's all. Employ this as you will. Calvin was a good humanist...and a lawyer to boot!...so, that how he operated. Chrysostom was his brother in Christ. Thus, according to Calvin, he deserves our time and attention as one of our own. But Chrysostom was not perfect. So, Calvin felt free to not agree with Chrysostom's position on everything. Calvin thought himself discerning.

For example, Augustine and Chrysostom did not agree on free will. Calvin usually sided with Augustine in this debate (Thus, predestination.). But Calvin thought that Chrysostom was exactly right in understanding (liturgical) sacramental theology (Thus, my paper.).

I see. Since you tipped your hat to Micah, I assumed that this was scholarly - I just had the wrong scholar. But I do think the point still stands. A lawyerly view of the historical narrative is right up my alley, but does open up a peculiar sense of logic. Although, I am reasonably sure that Calvin was predestined to correct the errors of the past.

Did it ever occur to you how funny a cartoon would be with John Calvin and a stuffed tiger? But would he still get on the sled if he knew it would crash?

An easy mistake to make given I only tipped my hat. Basically the hat tip is for the idea. He's working on his doctoral dissertation and posting a sentence or two when he writes. I think it's a good idea.

Well, what you point out is the logical frustration of "Enlightenment theologies." Humanism has lots of positive aspects. That one can do what one wills with the historical narrative is one that sits on both sides of the fence there.

It's also good to know that Calvin's excitement about Chrysostom also has to do with the fact that Chrysostom's sermons were "new" information in the west. With the split in the church at 1000-ish, much was tossed or lost or ignored if it came from east of Vienna. Heh.

So, he's also just plain excited. It's fun to read about how he misquotes Chrysostom as well. Or how in the heat of debate he would say "Well, Chrysostom said..." when he was clearly just making things up. Ah well...fun.

Interesting in siding with Augustine that he then assumes he is correct and not that he should keep the church fathers speaking to each other so to speak. Especially when from my POV granted 500 years later is that Scripture is hardly clear on the issue of predestination itself!
Though this also is something that strikes me as increasingly odd that there is this tendency to isolate the theologians, the teachings and Scripture, the councils and their creeds and canons rather than reading all of these as a single piece. I suppose it may be the lawyerly (thus adversarial analytical?) way of looking at things, and much more difficult to simply pull out authorities in defense of ones position.
Thanks for posting this, all very interesting.