"But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil."- Hebrews 5:14

Friday, February 14, 2020

The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther


I first read Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will [wiki article] in [circa] 1998. The J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston translation. Around 2004 I read Catholic theologian Harry McSorley's classic book Luther: Right or Wrong? Which is a review of Luther's book and which, in my opinion, every Protestant should read, along with Luther's Bondage and Erasmus' Freedom. Recently (Jan. 2020) I finally read Erasmus Desiderius' On the Freedom of the Will [wiki article] found in the The Library of Christian Classics edition Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation. Translated by E. Gordon Rupp. Having finished Erasmus' book, I decided to re-read Luther's work in the translation offered in the same edition [translated by Philip S. Watson]. Luther's Bondage was in response to Erasmus' Freedom. Erasmus would latter respond to the Bondage in a two part book Hyperaspistes. However, the Hyperaspistes never gained any popular recognition.

I mention all of the above to preface my recommendation of Luther's Bondage. I've personally read it, and highly recommend all of my fellow Protestants read it as well. I realize that the book is by no means perfect. There are modern theological and philosophical distinctions and categories which show some of the gaps and weaknesses in Luther's reasoning [cf. McSorley's book]. Nevertheless, Luther goes a long way in defending and demonstrating God's sovereign unconditional election on Scriptural grounds. Even McSorley's book praises much in the work. The Bondage truly is, as has been noted by others, the Reformation's 'Manifesto' on Sola Gratia.

While neither the Packer & Johnston or the Watson translations are freely available online (being in copyright), Henry Cole's translation is freely available (being in public domain).

Here's the book in:
HTML
PDF
AUDIOBOOK [LibriVox recording]

The LibriVox recording has also been uploaded on YouTube:




UPDATE:

There are a number of translations of Luther's "Bondage." Here's one freely online that's translated by Vaughan.

 

The Bondage of the Will by Luther translated by VAUGHAN
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/luther/Bondage%20of%20the%20Will%20-%20Martin%20Luther.pdf

OR

https://www.onthewing.org/user/Luther%20-%20Bondage%20of%20the%20Will%20-%20Vaughan%201823.pdf

 

 




Sunday, February 2, 2020

My Observations and Notes on the Debate Between Luis Dizon vs. Joshua Gibbs on Justification



Luis Dizon's blogpost on the debate:
https://eacanada.wordpress.com/2020/02/01/debate-on-the-doctrine-of-justification-luis-dizon-vs-joshua-gibbs/



Here are my personal observations and notes on the debate as a Calvinistic and continuationist Baptist. They are my notes, rather than a case for my position. They are also a clarification of my present position for my own continuing understanding of Justification and Sanctification.

In the debate Joshua kept going over time. That was fine because he was lenient with Luis' use of time as well. Though, I wish that he would have told Luis that after he finished his opening he had over 2 minutes more left. Luis could have used that time productively.

I think that Luis could have pressed Joshua to Biblically defend the imputation of Christ's active obedience/righteousness (IAO). Which isn't as biblically supported as many Protestants think. Though, I personally think it's sufficiently supported.

Regarding the Lordship Salvation Controversy in the 1990s, I hold to Lordship Salvation. But Joshua seems to hold to the Non-Lordship Salvation position of either Charles Ryrie or [the more extreme view of] Zane Hodges. If so, then Luis should have asked whether Joshua thought Luis himself is still saved. Given Joshua's view, it would seem that he would have to say, "Yes". In which case, it was safest for Luis to cover all the bases and revert to Catholicism. Since, he can't lose his salvation by reverting given Joshua's apparent view of justification and optional sanctification. And Luis' attitude toward Jesus isn't like the hypothetical atheist that Joshua struggles to categorize. Lordship Salvation sees sanctification as necessary [in some sense], while Non-Lordship Salvation sees it as optional. As a Calvinist I believe God always sanctifies those whom He justifies [unless the person immediately dies after justification]. The Non-Lordship Salvation view of "Eternal Security" or "Once Saved, Always Saved", while similar, should never be confused with the more robust Calvinist view of the "Perseverance of the Saints".

I think Trent Horn clearly won his debate with James White on perseverance. I think that's partly because, as James has repeatedly said, he intentionally no longer debates like he used to in order to win the debate. But to win the audience. I think that attitude and approach has negatively affected the quality of his debates. I also wonder whether if he's no longer preparing or brushing up for his debates with Catholics. Compare his debating style in the 1990s with his recent debates and there's a huge difference. If I recall correctly, I think White did a much better defense of the Perseverance of the Saints in his debate with Atkin and Matatics.

Predestination debate with Akin
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=327181522286

Eternal Security debate with Matatics
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5301512831


I completely agree (or virtually so, say 99%) with the historical survey of the 1st part of Luis' Opening. He mentions that R.C. Sproul claimed Catholicism denies Sola Gratia. That might be so. But Michael Horton (and presumably others at the White Horse Inn) has said that it's IRONIC that while there is a long list of theologians in the stream and tradition of Roman Catholicism who affirmed Sola Gratia while denying Sola Fide, that there are many contemporary Evangelicals who affirm Sola Fide, but deny Sola Gratia (e.g. Arminians). So, there are Reformed folk like Horton and myself who acknowledge that Roman Catholicism (or at least some of their theologians) affirm Sola Gratia.

I agree that Roman Catholicism officially denies both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism [as I understand them]. At least since the rediscovery of the Canons of the Council of Orange sometime in the 16th century. My limited understanding is that Pelagianism teaches grace, while useful, isn't absolutely necessary because humans can earn salvation by their use of their freewill and strict merit good works. Grace is not strictly necessary. Whereas Semi-Pelagianism does affirm that grace is absolutely necessary, but that man always, or at least sometimes can move toward God and respond to God's grace apart from that grace first influencing him and moving him toward a response. Roman Catholicism rejects that Semi-Pelagian view and affirms enabling/initiating grace, or what they call Operating Grace prior to initial justification. As well as Cooperating Grace after initial justification. Wesleyans and most non-Reformed/non-Lutheran Evangelicals refer to enabling/initiating grace as Prevenient Grace.  Prevenient grace doesn't leave men merely indifferent or neutral. It also draws and woos people to respond to God's grace. As Arminian theologian Roger Olson described it, "...it is an operation of the Holy Spirit that frees the sinner’s will from bondage to sin and convicts, calls, illumines and enables the sinner to respond to the gospel call with repentance and faith (conversion)." Calvinists don't merely hold grace is necessary, but that it's also sufficient. Hence the term Efficacious Grace which is redemptive, special and applied only to the elect, as opposed to Common Grace which all humanity receives. In Calvinism all those whom God regenerates, He also justifies; and all those whom He justifies He also sanctifies [on the assumption that they don't die immediately and have time to perform good works]. Compare my blogpost HERE.

Luis rightly points out that there are differences among the Reformed regarding justification and sanctification. Though his emphasis on that could lead some to think there aren't differences among non-Calvinistic Evangelicals among themselves or among Catholics themselves and the patristic fathers themselves. For example, even among Wesleyans there are about 10 different views regarding Prevenient Grace. See chapter 9 of Still Sovereign edited by Schreiner. Not to mention that John Wesley himself continually modified his views on justification throughout his life. Wesleyans also disagree on the definition of Entire Sanctification. While it's slightly out-dated and not as scholarly as it could be, Peter Toon's survey on the different views on justification and sanctification in Christendom is freely online here: http://assets.newscriptorium.com/toon-collection/doctrine/justsanct1.htm

Luis rightly points out that the Reformed disagree on the concept of Final Justification (or what he also referred to as double justification). I myself affirm a double justification. I've defended Piper's views as Biblical and historical for a long time. For example, here's a dialogue I had in 2010 regarding the Piper's view against the Neo-Sandemanian view of the definition of faith by Gordon Clark and his disciples. I posted as Annoyed Pinoy.
https://godshammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/clark-quick-quote-7/

Here's a quick video on John Piper's view of the Justification of the Thief on the Cross where he applies his understanding of final justification to the thief.
https://www.facebook.com/TogetherfortheGospel/videos/440569583487014/

In the 1990s there was the Lordship Salvation vs. Non-Lordship Salvation debate among Evangelicals [e.g. MacArthur vs. Ryrie/Hodges], and I sided with the former. Though, MacArthur's views could have been stated better. See Christ the Lord  by Michael Horton and other contemporary Reformational authors on the topic of Lordship Salvation.

I agree with Calvinist Jonathan Edwards that Christ's righteousness is also infused in us in sanctification [not just imputed in justification]. That God makes sinners objectively righteous.

I agree with the last paragraph of Calvinist A.W. Pink's book, _The Doctrine of Justification_:

Let it be said in conclusion that the justification of the Christian is complete the moment he truly believes in Christ, and hence there are no degrees in justification. The Apostle Paul was as truly a justified man at the hour of his conversion as he was at the close of his life. The feeblest babe in Christ is just as completely justified as is the most mature saint. Let theologians note the following distinctions. Christians were decretively justified from all eternity: efficaciously so when Christ rose again from the dead; actually so when they believed; sensibly so when the Spirit bestows joyous assurance; manifestly so when they tread the path of obedience; finally so at the Day of Judgment, when God shall sententiously, and in the presence of all created things, pronounce them so.- A.W. Pink, The Doctrine of Justification, chapter 10, last paragraph [bold added by me- AP]
https://web.archive.org/web/20180205183443/http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Justification/index.htm

And John Gerstner's statement:

Christians will receive rewards in heaven for every one of their imperfect “good” works for a very good reason. Those post-justification good works are not necessary for heaven because Jesus Christ purchased heaven for those in Him by faith. The works are necessary to prove the genuineness of professed faith but they are not necessary for earning heaven. They are real “works of super-erogation,” if you wish. Anyone who goes to heaven does so for the merit of Christ’s work alone, apart from any merit in any and all of his own works of obedience. If faith could exist apart from works, which it cannot, the believer could go to heaven without ever doing one good work. As it is, he goes to heaven without one iota of merit in anything and everything he does. But every post-justification good work he ever does will merit, deserve, and receive its reward in heaven.

You protest, “But post-justification works have sin in them, and therefore cannot merit any reward.” You forget that their guilt of sin has been removed. Moreover, do you dare impugn the justice of God by saying that He would “reward” what did not deserve reward? (P.S. I confess my own and Augustine’s past error in using the oxymoron: “rewards of grace.”)

In conclusion, faith, as union with Christ, possesses Christ’s righteousness which justifies perfectly forever. Being true faith, it is inseparable from works which contribute zero to justification. But being unnecessary for heaven (which Christ’s merit alone purchases), works are meritorious and the Christian is now to leap for joy because every one of his weakest of works will deservedly receive an everlasting reward in heaven. [The Nature of Justifying Faith - by Dr. John H. Gerstner]
https://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/the-nature-of-justifying-faith-by-dr-john-h-gerstner/

So I affirm a kind of "condign" merit for rewards, or what Piper calls "conditional unmerited grace", but not for justification or acceptance before God.

With regard to the second part of Luis' Opening, the Biblical arguments:

I agree that faith in the New Testament can sometimes have the meaning of allegiance/loyalty, even faithfulness. I also agree that "works of the Law" in Paul can sometimes refers to the Mosaic Covenant and its laws. But I don't think that these facts necessarily undermine the general Reformed view of Justification.

I affirm the usefulness and legitimacy of the distinctions of the different theological types of works that Roman Catholics [and others] can refer to. For example:

Types of works: 1. keeping of the Mosaic Covenant and its laws; 2. merely the ceremonial laws; 3. any keeping of moral precepts [as opposed to or distinguished from ceremonial or civil laws in the Mosaic Covenant]; 4. any type of works prior to initial justification; 5. strict merit works; 6. Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian works; 7. congruous merit; 8. condign merit et cetera

These are good theological distinctions, but they aren't Biblical distinctions. So, I nevertheless think that Paul excludes all types of works for justification. Such categories were not in his mind when he wrote his epistles.

I'm willing to say that the Apostle James teaches our works vindicates us, or vindicates our faith before God, but I don't think he's addressing what Paul is addressing when it comes to justification. We have to allow Biblical authors to use theological terminology and categories of thought in their own way, and not shoehorn different Biblical authors into meaning what another author meant or was addressing. Though, this in no way denies that we ought to harmonize and systematize Biblical teaching on a topic. Nevertheless, different authors do have different frameworks on the same topics.  The distinct Christian communities described theological truths differently. The soteriology and Christology in the Pauline corpus is expressed very differently/distinctly than in the Johannine corpus. For example, Paul never referred to Christ as the "Logos of God" or as "the Son of Man". The Johannine corpus is willing to explicitly say that we have eternal life immediately upon the exercise of faith. While Paul usually likes to reserve the obtaining of eternal life to the future eschaton. John meanwhile never spoke of justification proper.

Nowhere does the Scripture explicitly state that Abraham or David lost their justification. At most one might appeal to Paul's citation of Ps. 32 to infer David lost his justification and needed to be re-justified. However, we have to understand three things. 1. the way New Testament authors quoted the Old Testament; 2. that we have to be careful to not anachronistically have New Testament authors imposing their theology onto the Tanakh; and 3. not anachronistically imposing later post-Biblical theological distinctions onto New Testament authors [as I warned above].

Regarding #1, I recommend listening to Arnold Fruchtenbaum's 3rd lecture in his series The Jewish Life of Christ. There he deals with how New Testament authors cited, quoted or alluded to Old Testament passages.
https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ

My summary doesn't do justice to Fruchtenbaum's live explication of the Jewish PaRDeS hermeneutical methods. So, I highly recommend listening to the first few minutes of his 3rd lecture to feel the weight of the point I'm making in point #1.

Fruchtenbaum points out that quotations by NT authors of the Tanakh doesn't necessary mean that they thought the passage from the OT they were citing taught the point they were making or that there are direct lessons one can learn from and OT passage cited in the New Testament which matches the New Testament author's point. Their citations could be much looser, and almost eisegetical. Here I would again recommend listening to his 3rd lecture.

In light of that, we can't necessarily infer that because New Testament authors cited different times when Abraham was justified that he was justified multiple times [the OT refers to his being justified in Genesis chapters 12, 15, 22]. Especially since more than one NT author is involved in making that inference of multiple justifications. That would violate the principle I mentioned above about allowing each author to express his theology and concerns his own way. Their letters are called "occasional epistles" for a reason. They were specifically written for occasions that dealt with particular issues. On justification, Paul was often dealing THEOLOGICALLY [orthodoxy] with how we are made acceptable before God, and then applying that to the Christian life. While James was dealing PASTORALLY [orthopraxy] with the problem of complacency and lack of zeal for good works and repentance among Christians. So, while Paul began with theology and ended with application in the Christian life, James did the opposite and began with living the Christian life to come to doctrinal conclusions. Paul was primarily dealing with the justification of the person, while James the justification of one's professed/claimed faith. While James does seem to be addressing the vindication of the person's faith (or maybe even the person himself) before God [pace some Protestants who absolutely deny this]; the vindication of the person and/or his faith isn't necessarily logically or theologically equivalent to the basis on which one is accepted by God and gains legitimate entrance into the Kingdom of God. For the historic Protestant, that's the finished work of Christ. His passive and active obedience.

It seems to me that "Golden Chain of Redemption" of Rom. 8:28-29 implies justification cannot be lost. As has been noted by some, the fact that sanctification isn't included in the chain might be because Paul didn't want anyone to infer that our salvation hinged on our sanctification. Also, in order to emphasize the proleptic certainty of how election leads to certain glorification. There doesn't seem to be any room in Paul's use of the "Chain" for any of the justified to fail to be glorified.

It seems to me that 1 John 2:19 and 3:9 suggests justification or eternal life cannot be lost.

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.- 1 John 3:9

The author seems to be saying that those who have been born again cannot persist in serious sin because regeneration is irreversible/irrevocable. In which case they cannot lose their "justification" [to use the Catholic sense].

Of course the Catholic sense believes in baptismal regeneration. I've addressed that in my thread of comments at Steve Hays' blogpost here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/11/catholicism-28-weeks-later.html?showComment=1573347331188#c6534021569072313175

Though, I'm open to the possibility that genuine believers can lose their salvation, and agree with the distinction between 1. the Perseverance of (only) the Elect and 2. the Perseverance of (all) the Saints, I lean against that position and view the two groups as coterminous rather than that the elect being a a smaller subset of the saints. I've also addressed the topic of the loss of salvation in that thread at Triablogue as well. My default position as a Calvinist is to affirm the Perseverance of the Saints.

While Catholics can epistemologically affirm with some certainty that they are currently in a salvific/gracious state, Trent denies that one can have assurance of making it to heaven in this life apart from a revelation from God. So, in one sense Catholics can affirm the Johannine claim that we can know we have eternal life [1 John 5:13; John 5:24]. Catholics can interpret that as referring to a present knowledge of a present state. However, I don't think that interpretation does justice to the Johannine authors' use of the phrase "eternal life" and the possibility of assurance and certainty of having it. The author says, "...He does not/shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24b). Which seems to correspond to Paul's statement, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus..." (Rom. 8:1ff.).

The following verses (Rom. 8:2ff.) have been used to support the idea that salvation can be lost, but Paul goes on to make a distinction between those who are in the flesh and those who are in the Spirit. Teaching that the response of those in the Spirit will be to live righteously, and that being "in the Spirit" [and having the Spirit] is a work of God, not of one's proper use and improvement of available offered grace. Remember too this is the same chapter that Paul introduces the the topic of predestination. While chapter divisions aren't part of the autographes, it's natural for Paul to transition from justification to predestination if justification is a permanent once for all reality as Reformed theology teaches. Justification and predestination are mentioned in the same verse, verse 30; and condemnation and justification is contrasted in the same verse just three verses later 33. With verse 32 implying God will give all things to believers for whom Christ died. Why shouldn't that include the "gift of perseverance" [to use Augustine's terminology]? Again, I delved into this in my comments at Steve Hays' blogpost HERE.

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.- Rom. 8:30
32    He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
33    Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.- Rom. 8:32-33
I believe it might be possible to attain apodictic and philosophic certainty that one will persevere in the faith and make it to the Kingdom of God, but that it requires a special inner testimony of the Holy Spirit that most Christians don't have. Though, the average Christian can have a lower level warranted assurance of that given the usual inner testimony of the Holy Spirit coupled with a credible profession of faith. Though, even that normal assurance of salvation is not, as Protestant theologians have said, "of the essence of faith". One can lack such assurance and still be in a salvific state. Just ask one can have a subjective erroneous assurance and be in a lost state. Since, it's possible to be deceived into to thinking one is "saved". Deception and self-deception is a real phenomenon and it's not contrary to Calvinism to affirm the following Biblical injunctions:

Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.- Heb. 12:14

Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?---unless indeed you fail to meet the test!- 2 Cor. 13:5
Security of salvation is an objective theological and/or onotological issue. While Assurance of salvation is a subjective psychological issue. In Calvinism, one HAS BEEN saved [past tense] from the penalty of sin in Justification; IS BEING saved [present tense] from the power of sin in Sanctification, and WILL BE saved [future tense] from the presence of sin in Glorification.

Finally, it seems to me that I can be more gracious regarding the salvation of Catholics than Catholics can be of Protestants like myself given past Ex Cathedra statements and the anathemas of Canons of the Council of Trent regarding my alleged damnable heresies on justification. Though, some Catholic apologists claim that they don't apply to modern Protestants like myself since they were aimed at 16th century heretics and individuals, and/or because I may not be knowingly and intentionally rejecting the truth of Catholicism. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't urge Catholics to leave Catholicism for some Evangelical position. I would, because I think Catholicism waters down or virtually [or actually] denies fundamental core teachings of the Bible.

The following are some of the Catholic ex cathedra statements that would condemn me as a Protestant to hell. Modern Catholics have a way of getting around these anathemas so that they don't apply to "separated brethren" like myself [per the historical revisionism of Vatican II]. But I think the original intention and interpretation of the following statements necessitates that I fall under the category of a "heretic and schismatic" doomed for Gehenna.

Ex Cathedra: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." Pope Innocent III, Forth Lateran Council, 1215

Ex Cathedra "Consequently we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctuam, 1302

Ex Cathedra: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely neccesary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctuam, 1302

Ex Cathedra: "[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels', unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739) (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

 " The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that NONE of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics [Protestants] and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, NO ONE, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).
Seventeenth Ecumenical Council -- Florence

Thursday, January 23, 2020

The Humble Attitude Calvinists Ought Have


Some articles on how Calvinists ought to be affected by their beliefs in relation to their interactions with others, and with their own selves. More articles will be added as I find them.

More Than a "Calvinist" by John Newton (1762) or HERE

The False Calvinist by Joe Thorn

Friday, October 25, 2019

Calvinism and Prayer


Prayer and the Sovereignty of God by Curt Daniel
https://www.faithbibleonline.net/prayer-and-the-sovereignty-of-god/
[or Here, Here]

God's Sovereignty and Prayer by A.W. Pink [chapter 9 of "The Sovereignty of God"]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pink/sovereignty.xii.html

More resources at Monergism.com here:
https://www.monergism.com/topics/prayer/sovereignty-god-prayer

Pointless Prayer [or Is It Pointless to Pray for Someone Else's Salvation?] https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/01/pointless-prayer.html


 

If God is Sovereign, Why Pray?: Prayer with R.C. Sproul
https://youtu.be/3VxyGP7z2rk

 

 

 

Monday, September 23, 2019

Did Some of the Early Church Fathers Make Statements that Anticipate Something Approaching Sola Fide?


David King posts a lot of great quotes from the early church fathers in the facebook group Catholics & Reformed. He's a recent one on sola fide. Paragraph spacing, BOLD AND ITALICS NOT REPRODUCED
Presumably, this is the same David King who co-wrote with William Webster the three volume book: Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith


https://www.facebook.com/groups/340179679454454/permalink/1470649229740821/

JXXXXX FXXXXXXX [NAME OMITTED]📷 writes “In other words, you don’t prove the ECF believed in Sola Fide by pointing out they didn’t believe in the immaculate conception.”
That was never my argument. Besides, Pelikan points out that there was proof for affirmations of justification via sola fide in the early church. It’s easy to show patristic expressions of that, even if they were inconsistent in their expressions and affirmations of it . . . And there is zero evidence in the early church for the soteriological dogma of the Assumption of Mary, which your own theologians grant. But I can find plenty of expressions of sola fide . . .
Jaroslav Pelikan, from his chapter on “The Tragic Necessity of the Reformation”: Not a new “Protestant” gospel, then, but the gospel of the true church, the catholic church of all generations, is what the Reformers claimed to be espousing. Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures; but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable. Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 48-49.
Here are some examples to which Pelikan was making reference.
Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): As it is written, Let him that boasteth, boast in the Lord. For this is the perfect and complete boasting in God, that no one is extolled on account of his own righteousness, but knows that he, being destitute of real righteousness, is justified by faith only in Christ. And Paul boasts in despising his own righteousness, and in seeking that which is of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 224.
Greek text: ἵνα καθὼς γέγραπται, Ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. Αὕτη γὰρ δὴ ἡ τελεία καὶ ὁλόκληρος καύχησις ἐν Θεῳ, ὅτε μήτε ἐπὶ δικαιοσύνῃ τις ἐπαίρεται τῇ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλʼ ἔγνω μὲν ἐνδεῆ ὄντα ἑαυτὸν δικαιοσύνης ἀληθοῦς, πίστει δὲ μόνῃ τῇ εἰς Χριστὸν δεδικαιωμένον. Kαὶ καυχᾶται Παῦλος ἐπὶ τῷ καταφρονῆσαι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δικαιοσύνης, ζητεῖν de. τὴν διὰ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει. Homilia XX, Homilia De Humilitate, §3, PG 31:529.
Marius Victorinus (born c. 280, converted around 356): Every mystery which is enacted by our Lord Jesus Christ asks only for faith. The mystery was enacted at that time for our sake and aimed at our resurrection and liberation, should we have faith in the mystery of Christ and in Christ. For the patriarchs prefigured and foretold that man would be justified from faith. Therefore, just as it was reckoned as righteousness to Abraham that he had faith, so we too, if we have faith in Christ and every mystery of his, will be sons of Abraham. Our whole life will be accounted as righteous. Epistle to the Galatians, 1.3.7. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 39.
Latin text: Omne mysterium, quod a Domino nostro Jesu Christo actum est, fidem solam quaerit: fuit enim pro nobis actum, et in nostram resurrectionem actum et liberationem, si fidem in mysterium Christi et in Christum habeamus. Hoc enim praelusit divinitas et praemisit, ut ex fide homo justificaretur. Ut reputatum est igitur Abrahae ad justitiam, quia fidem habuit; sic et nos, si fidem habemus in Christum ejusque mysterium, erimus filii Abrahae, id est reputabitur nobis omnis vita ad justitiam. In Epistolam Pauli Ad Galatas, Liber Primus, Cap. III, PL 8:1169A.
John Chrysostom (349-407): The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of faith alone: before circumcision, the text says, “Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.” Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, Homily 27.7 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 167.
Greek text: Αὐτὸς ὁ πατριάρχης Ἀβραὰμ, πρὶν ἢ τὴν περιτομὴν δέξασθαι, ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως μόνης ἐδικαιώθη. Πρὸ γὰρ τῆς περιτομῆς, φησὶ, καὶ Ἐπίστευσε δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Homiliae in Genesim, Caput VIII, Homilia XXVII, §3, PG 53:243.
John Chrysostom (349-407): Let us see, however, whether the brigand gave evidence of effort and upright deeds and a good yield. Far from his being able to claim even this, he made his way into paradise before the apostles with a mere word, on the basis of faith alone, the intention being for you to learn that it was not so much a case of his sound values prevailing as the Lord’s lovingkindness being completely responsible. Robert Charles Hill, trans., St. John Chrysostom, Eight Sermons on the Book of Genesis (Boston: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2004) Sermon 7, p. 123. These sermons were delivered by Chrysostom in Antioch during Lent of 386 (see p. 3).
Greek text: Ἀλλʼ ἴδωμεν, μὴ πόνους ἐπεδείξατο καὶ κατορθώματα καὶ καρποὺς ὁ λῃστής. Οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ ψιλοῦ ῥήματος, ἀπὸ πίστεως μόνης πρὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων εἰσεπήδησεν εἰς τὸν παράδεισον, ἵνα μάθῃς ὅτι οὐχ ἡ ἐκείνου εὐγνωμοσύνη τοσοῦτον ἴσχυσεν, ὅσον τοῦ Δεσπότου ἡ φιλανθρωπία τὸ πᾶν ἐποίησε. In Genesim, Sermo VII, §4, PG 54:613.
John Chrysostom (349-407): Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. ‘And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith.’ (v. 9.) From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those (objectors); this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Homly 32, Acts 15:1.
Greek text: Ὅρα πῶς πανταχοῦ ἐξισοῖ τὰ ἔθνη. Καὶ οὐδὲν διέκρινε μεταξὺ ἡμῶν τε καὶ αὐτῶν, τῇ πίστει καθαρίσας τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν. Ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως μόνης, φησὶ, τῶν αὐτῶν ἔτυχον. Κἀκείνων ταῦτα ἐντρεπτικά· μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐκείνους διδάξαι δύναται, ὅτι πίστεως δεῖ μόνης, καὶ οὐκ ἔργων οὐδὲ περιτομῆς. In Acta Apostolorum, Homilia XXXII, §1, PG 60:235.
John Chrysostom (349-407): For if even before this, the circumcision was made uncircumcision, much rather was it now, since it is cast out from both periods. But after saying that “it was excluded,” he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? “By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 7, vs. 27.
Greek text: Εἰ γὰρ καὶ πρὸ τούτου ἡ περιτομὴ ἀκροβυστία ἐγένετο, πολλῷ μᾶλλον νῦν καὶ γὰρ ἐξ ἑκατέρων ἐκβέβληται τῶν καιρῶν. Εἰπὼν δὲ, ὅτι Ἐξεκλείσθη, δείκνυσι καὶ πῶς. Πῶς οὖν ἐξεκλείσθη, φησί; Διὰ ποίου νόμου; τῶν ἔργων; Οὐχὶ, ἀλλὰ διὰ νόμου πίστεως. δʹ. Ἰδοὺ καὶ τὴν πίστιν νόμον ἐκάλεσεν, ἐμφιλοχωρῶν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, ὥστε παραμυθεῖσθαι τὴν δοκοῦσαν εἶναι καινοτομίαν. Τίς δὲ ὁ τῆς πίστεως νόμος; Διὰ χάριτος σώζεσθαι. Ἐνταῦθα τὸ δυνατὸν δείκνυσι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἔσωσεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐδικαίωσε καὶ εἰς καύχησιν ἤγαγε, καὶ οὐδὲ ἔργων δεηθεὶς, ἀλλὰ πίστινζητήσας μόνον. In epistulam ad Romanos, Homilia VII, §3·4, PG 60:446.
John Chrysostom (349-407): Now since the Jews kept turning over and over the fact, that the Patriarch, and friend of God, was the first to receive circumcision, he wishes to show, that it was by faith that he too was justified. And this was quite a vantage ground to insist upon. For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light. NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 8, Romans 4:1-2, first paragraph.
John Chrysostom (349-407): They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, ‘In thee shall all nations be blessed,’ (Genesis 12:4.) at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Commentary on Galatians, 3:8.
Greek text: Ἐκεῖνοι πάλιν ἔλεγον, ὅτι ὁ τῇ πίστει μόνῃ προσέχων, ἐπικατάρατος· οὗτος δὲ δείκνυσιν, ὅτι ὁ τῇ πίστει προσέχων μόνῃ, εὐλογημένος. Πῶς οὖν ταῦτα πάντα δείκνυσιν; οὐ γὰρ τὸ τυχὸν ἐπηγγειλάμεθα. Διὸ χρὴ καὶ μετὰ ἀκριβείας προσέχειν τοῖς ἑξῆς. Ἔδειξε μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦτο εἰπὼν, ὅτι ἡ Γραφὴ εἶπε τῷ πατριάρχῃ, ὅτι Ἐν σοὶ εὐλογηθήσονται πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. Τότε δὲ νόμος οὐκ ἦν, ἀλλὰ πίστις· In epistulam ad Galatas commentarius, Caput III, §3, PG 61:651.
John Chrysostom (349-407): Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it. For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, On the Second Epistle of St. Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians, Homily 2, §8.
John Chrysostom (349-407): For he makes a wide distinction between ‘commandments’ and ‘ordinances.’ He either then means ‘faith,’ calling that an ‘ordinance,’ (for by faith alone He saved us,) or he means ‘precept,’ such as Christ gave, when He said, ‘But I say unto you, that ye are not to be angry at all.’ (Matthew 5:22.) That is to say, ‘If thou shalt believe that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.’ (Romans 10:6-9.) And again, ‘The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart. Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven, or who shall descend into the abyss?’ or, who hath ‘brought. Him again from the dead?’ Instead of a certain manner of life, He brought in faith. For that He might not save us to no purpose, He both Himself underwent the penalty, and also required of men the faith that is by doctrines. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Ephesians, Homly 5, Ephesians 2:11,12.
Greek text: Πολλὴν γὰρ ἐνταῦθα διαφοράν φησιν ἐντολῆς καὶ δογμάτων. Ἢ τὴν πίστιν οὖν φησι, δόγμα αὐτὴν καλῶν· ἀπὸ γὰρ πίστεως μόνης ἔσωσεν· ἢ τὴν παραγγελίαν, καθὼς ἔλεγεν ὁ Χριστός· Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, μηδὲ ὀργισθῆναι ὅλως. Τουτέστιν, Ἐὰν πιστεύσῃς, ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν, σωθήσῃ· Καὶ πάλιν, Ἐγγύς σου τὸ ῥῆμά ἐστιν ἐν τῷ στόματί σου, καὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου. 62.40 Μὴ εἴπῃς, Τίς ἀναβήσεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, ἢ τίς καταβήσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον, ἢ τίς αὐτὸν ἀνήγαγεν ἐκ νεκρῶν; Ἀντὶ βίου πίστιν εἰσήγαγεν. Ἵνα γὰρ μὴ εἰκῆ σώσῃ, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκολάσθη, καὶ ἀπῄτησεν αὐτοὺς τὴν πίστιν διὰ δογμάτων. In epistulam ad Ephesios,Homilia V, §2, PG 62:39-40.
John Chrysostom (349-407): That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor. Upon this head accordingly Paul has discoursed at length in his Epistle to the Romans, and here again at length. “This is a faithful saying,” he says, “and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” As the Jews were chiefly attracted by this, he persuades them not to give heed to the law, since they could not attain salvation by it without faith. Against this he contends; for it seemed to them incredible, that a man who had mis-spent all his former life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his faith alone. On this account he says, “It is a saying to be believed.” But some not only disbelieved but even objected, as the Greeks do now. “Let us then do evil, that good may come.” This was the consequence they drew in derision of our faith, from his words, “Where sin abounded grace did much more abound.” (Rom. 3:8, and 5:20). NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on First Timothy, Homily 4, 1 Timothy 1:15, 16.
Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 1:11: For the mercy of God had been given for this reason: that they should give up the works of the law, as I have often said, because God, taking pity on our weakness, decreed that the human race was saved by faith alone, along with natural law. Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts, Gerald L. Bray, ed., trans., Romans and 1-2 Corinthians(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 7.
Latin Text:Nam misericordia Dei ad hoc data est, ut Lex cessaret, quod saepe jam dixi; quia Deus consulens infirmitati humanae, sola fide addita legi naturali, hominum genus salvare decrevit. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:53.
Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 2:12: If the law is given, not for the righteous but for the unrighteous, whoever does not sin is a friend of the law. For him, faith alone is the way by which he is made perfect, for avoiding evil will not gain him any advantage with God unless he also believes in God, so that he may be righteous on both counts. The one righteousness is temporal, but the other is eternal. Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts, Gerald L. Bray, ed., trans., Romans and 1-2 Corinthians(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 18.
Latin Text: Si enim justo non est lex posita,sed injustis; qui non peccat, amicus legis est. Huic sola fides deest, per quam fiat perfectus quia nihil illi proderit apud Deum abstinere a contrariis, nisi fidem in Deum acceperit, ut sit justus per utraque; quia illa temporis justitia est, haec aeternitatis. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:67.
Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:24: They are justified freely, because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God. Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts, Gerald L. Bray, ed., trans., Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 29.
Latin Text: Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicem reddentes, sola fidejustificati sunt dono Dei. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:79.
Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:27: Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast, basing themselves on the law and claiming either to be of the race of Abraham or to have accepted the precepts of God from Moses, seeing that no one is justified before God except by faith. Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts, Gerald L. Bray, O.S.A., ed., trans., Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 30.
Latin Text: Ubi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? factorum? Non, sed per legem fidei. Reddita ratione, ad eos loquitur, qui agunt sub lege, quod sine causa glorientur, blandientes sibi de lege, et propter quod genus sint Abrahae, videntes non justificari hominem apud Deum, nisi per fidem. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:80.
Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:5: How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone. Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts, Gerald L. Bray, ed., trans., Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 32.
Latin Text:Hoc dicit, quia sine operibus legis credenti impio, id est gentili, in Christum, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam, sicut et Abrahae. Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera legis justificari se putant justificatione Abrahae; cum videant Abraham non per opera legis, sed sola fide justificatum? Non ergo opus est lex, quando impius per solam fidem justificatur apud Deum. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:82-83.
Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:6, ‘righteousness apart from works’: Paul backs this up by the example of the prophet David, who says that those are blessed of whom God has decreed that, without work or any keeping of the law, they are justified before God by faith alone. Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts, Gerald L. Bray, O.S.A., ed., trans., Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 32.
Latin Text:Hoc ipsum munit exemplo prophetae. Beatitudinem hominis, cui Deus accepto fert justitiam sine operibus. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus, ut sine labore et aliqua observatione, sola fide justificentur apud Deum. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:83.
Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), wrote while commenting on 1 Cor. 1:4b: He says that grace is given by God in Christ Jesus, because God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works; by faith alone he receives the forgiveness of his sins. Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts, Gerald L. Bray, ed., trans., Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 120.
Latin Text:Datam dicit gratiam a Deo in Christo Jesu, quae gratia sic data est in Christo Jesu; quia hoc constitutum est a Deo, ut qui credit in Christum, salvus sit sine opere: sola fide gratis accipit remissionem peccatorum. In Epistolam B. Pauli Ad Corinthios Primam, PL 17:185.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Romans 3:22-23: He (Paul) briefly showed all to be guilty and in need of grace. Justified gratuitously by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus(v.24): bringing faith alone, we received the forgiveness of sins, since Christ the Lord offered his own body as a kind of ransom for us. Whom God put forward as a mercy seat by his blood effective through faith (v.25). The mercy seat was of gold leaf, situated on the ark; on either side it had the carvings of the cherubim. From there God’s benevolence was revealed to the high priest as he ministered. The divine apostle, then, teaches that Christ the Lord is the true mercy seat: the old one had the function of a type of the latter. Now, the title belongs to him as a man, not as God: as God he gave a response through the mercy seat, while as man he receives this name as he does others, like sheep, lamb, sin, curse and suchlike. Whereas the old mercy seat was without blood, insofar as it was lifeless, and drops of the blood of the victims fell on it, Christ the Lord is God and mercy seat, high priesnt and lamb, and with his blood worked our salvation, requiring from us only faith. Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 1 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 64.
Greek text: Ἐν συντόμῳ πάντας ὑπευθύνους ἔδειξε, καὶ τῆς χάριτος ἐνδεεῖς. Δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χπριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Πίστιν γὰρ μόνην εἰσενεγκόντες, τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων τὴν ἄφεσιν ἐδεξάμεθα· ἐπειδὴ οἷον τι λύτρον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ὁ Δεσπότης Χριστὸς τὸ οἰκεῖον προσενήνοχε σῶμα. Ὅν προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως, ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι. Τὸ ἱλαστήριον πέταλον ἦν χρυσοῦν· ἐπέκειτο δὲ τῇ κιβωτῷ· ἐκατέρωθεν δὲ εἶχε τὰ τῶν Χερουβὶμ ἐκτυπώματα. Ἐκεῖθεν τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ λειτουργοῦντι ἐγίνετο δήλη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ εὐμένεια. Διδάσκει τοίνυν ὁ Θεὸς Ἀπόσλολος, ὡς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἱλαστήριον ὁ Δεσπότης ἐστὶ Χριστὸς. Ἐκεῖνο γὰρ τὸ παλαιὸν τούτου τὸν τύπον ἐπλήρου. Ἁρμόττει δὲ αὐτῷ ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ ὄνομα, οὐχ ὡς Θεῷ. Ὡς γὰρ Θεὸς, αὐτὸς διὰ τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου χρηματίζει· ὡς δὲ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ταύττην δέχεται τὴν προσηγορίαν, καθάπερ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας, οἷον πρόβατον, καὶ ἀμνὸς, καὶ ἁμαρτία, καὶ κατάρα, καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα. Καὶ τὸ μέν παλαιὸν ἱλαστήριον καὶ ἄναιμος ἦν, ἐπείπερ καὶ ἄψυχον· τοῦ δὲ τῶν ἱερείων αἵματος τὰς ῥανίδας ἐδέχετο. Ὁ δὲ Δεσπότης Χριστὸς, καὶ Θεός ἐστὶ, καὶ ἱλαστήριον, καὶ ἀρχιερεὺς, καὶ ἀμνὸς, καὶ ἐν τῷ οἰκείῳ αἵματι τὴν ἡμετέραν ἐπραγματεύσατο σωτηρίαν, πίστιν μόνην παρʼ ἡμῶν ἀπαιτήσας. Interpretatio Epistolae ad Romanos, Cap III, PG 82:84-85.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Ephesians 2:8-9: By grace, in fact, you are saved through faith (v.8): the grace of God regaled us with these good things; we had only faith to offer, but divine grace worked with it. He went on in this vein: This is no doing of yours: it is the gift of God, not from works lest anyone boast (vv.8-9): we have not believed of our own volition; rather we made our approach when called, and when we did he did not require of us purity of life―instead, he accepted faith alone and granted us forgiveness of sins. Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 39.
Greek text: «Τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως.» Ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάρις τούτων ἡμᾶς ἠξίωσε τῶν ἀγαθῶν. Ἡμεῖς δὲ μόνην τὴν πίστιν προσενηνόχαμεν. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ταύτης ἡ θεία χάρις γεγένηται συνεργός. Τοῦτο γὰρ ἐπήγαγε· «Καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν· Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον· οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις καυχήσηται.» Οὐ γὰρ αὐτόματοι πεπιστεύκαμεν, ἀλλὰ κληθέντες προσεληλύθαμεν, καὶ προσελθόντας οὐκ ἀπήτησε καθαρότητα βίου, ἀλλὰ μόνην τὴν πίστιν δεξάμενος, τὴν τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἄφεσιν ἐδωρήσατο. Interpretatio Epistolae ad Ephesios, Caput II, PG 82:521A-B.
Theodoret of Cyrus (393-466): I own myself wretched—aye thrice wretched. I am guilty of many errors. Through faith alone I look for finding some mercy in the day of the Lord’s appearing. NPNF2: Vol. III, Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, Letter 83.
Greek text: Ἐγὼ δὲ ἄθλιον ἐμαυτὸν καὶ τρισάθλιον οἶδα· πολλοῖς γὰρ ὑπόκειμαι πλημμελήμασι· διὰ μόνην δὲ πίστιν ἐν τῇ τῆς θείας ἐπιφανείας ἡμέρᾳ φειδοῦς τινος ἀπολαύσεσθαι προσδοκῶ. Epistola LXXXIII, PG 83:1269.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466): Thus, again, having demonstrated the appearance of the iniquity of the priestly law, promising the forgiveness of sins, which is bestowed through all-holy baptism, “I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins.” [Isa 43:25]. For indeed, not through works worthy of praise, but through faith alone have we obtained the mystically good. Surely, as well, the divine apostle has cried out, “By grace you have been saved, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, in order that no one may boast.” (my translation)
Greek text: Οὕτω πάλιν δείξας ἀνόνητα τῆς νομικῆς ἱερουργίας τὰ εἴδη, ὑπισχνεῖται τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων τὴν ἄφεσιν, ἣν διὰ τοῦ παναγίου βαπτίσματος ἐδωρήσατο· «Ἐγώ εἰμι, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἐξαλείφων τὰς ἀνομίας σου ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ, καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου οὐ μὴ μνησθήσομαι.» Οὐ γὰρ δὴ διʼ ἔργων ἀξιεπαίνων, ἀλλὰ διὰ μόνης πίστεως τῶν μυστικῶν τετυχήκαμεν ἀγαθῶν. Τῷ τοι καὶ ὁ θεῖος Ἀπόστολος κέκραγεν· «Χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι· καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον, ἵνα μή τις καυχήσηται.» Τοῦτο κἀνταῦθα δηλῶν, τὸ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ τέθεικεν. Graecarum Affectionum curatio, Sermo VII. De Sacrificiis,PG 83:1001B.
Oecumenius (6thcentury), commenting on James 2:23: Abraham is the image of someone who is justified by faith alone, since what he believed was credited to him as righteousness. But he is also approved because of his works, since he offered up his son Isaac on the altar. Of course he did not do this work by itself; in doing it, he remained firmly anchored in his faith, believing that through Isaac his seed would be multiplied until it was as numerous as the stars. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 33. See PG 119:481.
Greek text: Τῆς μὲν ἐκ μόνης πίστεως δικαιώσεως εἰκὼν ἦν Ἀβραὰμ, ὅτε πιστεύσας ἐλογίσθη αὐτοῦ εἶς δικαιοσύνην, τῆς δὲ ἔξ ἔργων, ὅτε τὸν υἱον ἀνενέγκας ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον. Καὶ γὰρ οὐ μόνον τὸ ἔργον ἐποίει, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς πίστεως οὐκ ἀπέστη, ὅτι ἐν Ἰσαὰκ μέλλει τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ πληθύνειν ὡς τὰ ἄστρα. Jacobi Apostoli Epistola Catholica, Caput IΙ, PG 119:481. Cf. Theophylactus, Expositio in Epistolam catholicam S. Jacobi, Caput II, PG 125:1160D.
Jerome (347-420): For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed in God. So great was the faith of Abraham, that both his former sins were forgiven him, and it alone was declared to be accepted above all righteousness. Afterward, he burned with great love, that he prepared himself for the performance of all good works. And it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Therefore he hath glory with God, according to that which the law approved. Now to him, who worketh, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt. For it is the part of a debtor to do things which are commanded: and; unless he obeys, he is condemned. But, if he does them, he has no glory: for he still is called an unprofitable servant, who does nothing more than is commanded. Righteousness is not given unto him freely: but a reward is paid for his former works. But to him, who worketh not but believeth on him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed for righteousness. When an ungodly man is converted, God justifies him through faith alone, not on account of good works which he possessed not: otherwise, on account of his deeds of ungodliness, he ought to have been punished. Observe: he doth not say, that a sinner is justified through faith, but an ungodly man; that is, one who hath lately become a believer, according to the purpose of the grace of God: who purposed to forgive sins freely through faith alone. For translation, see George Stanley Faber, The Primitive Doctrine of Justification (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1837), pp. 120-121.
Latin text: Quid enim dicit Scriptura? Credidit Abraham Deo. Tam magna fuit fides Abrahae, ut et pristina ei peccata donarentur, et sola prae omni justitia doceretur accepta, et tanto deinceps amore flagravit, ut super omnia se opera praeparet. Et reputatum est illi ad justitiam. Et ideo habet gloriam apud Deum, secundum quod lex probavit. Ei autem qui operatur, merces non imputatur secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum.Debitoris enim est facere, quae jubentur: et nisi paruerit, damnatur: si autem fecerit, non habet gloriam, quia inutilis adhuc servus dicitur, qui nihil amplius, quam quod praeceptum est, operatur. Aliter: Non illis gratis donatur justitia, seu merces redditur operum pristinorum. Ei vero qui non operatur, credenti autem in eum qui justificat impium, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam. Convertentem impium, per solam fidem justificat Deus, non opera bona, quae non habuit. Alioquin per impietatis opera fuerat puniendus. Simul attende, quia non peccatorem dicit justificari per fidem, sed impium: hoc est nuper credentem asseruit. Secundum propositum gratiae Dei. Qui proposuit gratis per solam fidem peccata dimittere. Commentarii in Evangelia necnon et in Epistolas B. Pauli, In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput IV, PL 30: 663A-663C.
Jerome (347-420) commenting on Galatians 3:6: Abraham believed in God: and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Thus likewise to you faith alone is sufficient for righteousness. For translation, see George Stanley Faber, The Primitive Doctrine of Justification (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1837), p. 122.
Latin text: Abraham credidit Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam. Ita et vobis ad justitiam sola sufficit fides. Commentarii in Evangelia necnon et in Epistolas B. Pauli, In Epistolam ad Galatas, Caput III, PL 30:812A.
Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) on Matthew 9: This was forgiven by Christ through faith, because the Law could not yield, for faith alone justifies.
Latin text: Et remissum est ab eo, quod lex laxare non poterat; fides enim sola justificat. Sancti Hilarii In Evangelium Matthaei Commentarius, Caput VIII, §6, PL 9:961.



see also:
http://www.semperreformanda.com/doctrine-2/5-solas/sola-fide-prior-to-the-reformation/

Saturday, June 1, 2019

Is the Office of the Papacy The Anti-Christ?

(posted 1/5/2023) 



I'm not yet convinced that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. That's the historic Protestant position going back to the days of the Protestant Reformation. Usually with the eschatological assumption of Historicism whereby the book of Revelation has been being fulfilled slowly down through history. I myself tend to interpret the book of Revelation in a Partial Preterist and Idealist way. Though, I'm slowly looking into the case for Historicism.

I think the pope is *an* anti-Christ even if I'm not yet convinced he's *the* anti-Christ. I say that even though there probably are some genuinely saved people in the Catholic Church. I believe there's enough truth in Catholicism for some to possibly be saved despite all the "traditions of men" that water down the truth and despite the official Catholic gospel not technically being a saving gospel. This is because perfect doctrine doesn't save. Rather it is Christ who saves, normatively through the very basics of the Gospel which include things like the doctrine of the Trinity and salvation by grace. Catholicism technically teaches both. Though, Catholicism's complex Gospel with all the accretions of the traditions of men technically denies (either outright, or at the very least implicitly) the sufficiency of the redemption Christ purchased at the cross in many ways.

The following is a link to some message that argue for the historic Protestant position that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. 


https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?currSection=sermonstopic&keyword=Papacy%20is%20the%20Antichrist&keyworddesc=Papacy%20is%20the%20Antichrist&seriesOnly=true&sourceid=swrb