A new and devastating quickie against Faith Alone?

[JonNC]

=mattp0625;14382815]I noticed sola fide was not mentioned above. Not only are the sacraments Augustine administered a direct contradiction of sola fide, but Augustine also wrote about the doctrine of purgatory - that one may need to be purged before entering heaven and that the prayers of others can have merit for those in purgatory. This certainly does not align with sola fide.

Where are you getting your information about sola fide?
The sacraments are very much in keeping with sola fide, and Lutherans themselves teach the necessity of being cleansed/purged to enter Heaven.

That said - as shown above, different Protestants nuance sola scirptura in different ways using different words. We can nuance it and say primary or equal or surpassing authority. Either way, we know that the canonized New Testament was not finalized until Augustine, Damascus and the Synod of Hippo. So, which is prime?

I’m happy you’ve noticed that protestant is not a “denomination”, communion, or church.
So, which what is prime? Each communion, in the same manner as sees prior to and since the Reformation era, determine the canon (rule) regarding scripture and how it is used.

Lastly, sola scriptura is not found in scripture (again - “profitable for teaching” is a large stretch. Paul also says that Mark is profitable).

No one with any common sense would claim that. Certainly it is inferred to some extent, but not taught. Hence, it is not a doctrine. It is a practice, a praxis of the Church.

What happened before the bible was fully canonized, for which Augustine was heavily involved? Christ left a teaching church as the prime authority for the first four centuries. (e.g. as detailed in Matthew 28 and John 20, as well as historical writings such as Clement , Ignatius and Irenaeus).

Amen, and it is still a teaching Church. That’s where things like doctrines and canons come from, and that is perfectly in keeping with sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[mattp0625]

Where are you getting your information about sola fide?
The sacraments are very much in keeping with sola fide, and Lutherans themselves teach the necessity of being cleansed/purged to enter Heaven.

I’m happy you’ve noticed that protestant is not a “denomination”, communion, or church.
So, which what is prime? Each communion, in the same manner as sees prior to and since the Reformation era, determine the canon (rule) regarding scripture and how it is used.

No one with any common sense would claim that. Certainly it is inferred to some extent, but not taught. Hence, it is not a doctrine. It is a practice, a praxis of the Church.

Amen, and it is still a teaching Church. That’s where things like doctrines and canons come from, and that is perfectly in keeping with sola scriptura.

Jon

I cannot account for every denomination’s nuance on everything. Go with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or any of the hundreds of denominations that formed by the end of the 16th century.
They all issued their own version of new doctrines.

Yes, Luther had his own version of quasi sacraments he invented without use of the bishops. He couldn’t have the existing magisterial authority issuing them.

Lutherans believe in purgatory? No, that’s a play on words.

Lastly, neither Jesus nor Paul issued provisions for denominations, conflicting doctrines, or disagteement on nonessentials (call them different communities). Paul indicated the church should be one. In any event, that’s off the topic.

 

[JonNC]

=mattp0625;14383357]I cannot account for every denomination’s nuance on everything. Go with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or any of the hundreds of denominations that formed by the end of the 16th century.

Correct. So be specific about who you are talking about.

They all issued their own version of new doctrines.

I’ve heard Orthodox Christians say the same about Rome, and that we just followed in your footsteps.

Yes, Luther had his own version of quasi sacraments he invented without use of the bishops. He couldn’t have the existing magisterial authority issuing them.

Please supply me with a link to the Catholic document that says Baptism in a Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, etc. communion is a quasi-Baptism.
And a Catholic as notable as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger used words quite the opposite of the disrespectful language in your post.

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.166

Since when is the salvation granting presence of Christ something Luther made up, or quasi?

Lutherans believe in purgatory? No, that’s a play on words.

That’s not what I said. I said that Lutherans believe in cleansing/purgation necessary for entry to Heaven. I’d encourage you to become a bit more informed.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

1. Catholics and Lutherans agree:

1. During this life, the justified “are not exempt from a lifelong struggle against the contradiction to God within the selfish desires of the old Adam (see Gal. 5:16; Rom. 7:7-10)” (JDDJ, 28; cf. Trent DS 1515 and 1690 and LC, Baptism, paras. 65-67236).

1. This struggle is rightly described by a variety of categories: e.g., penitence, healing, daily dying and rising with Christ.

1. Borne in Christ, the painful aspects of this struggle are a participation in Christ’s suffering and death. Catholic teachings call these pains temporal punishments; the Lutheran Confessions grant they can, "in a formal sense,"237 be called punishments.

1. This ongoing struggle does not indicate an insufficiency in Christ’s saving work, but is an aspect of our being conformed to Christ and his saving work.238

**5. The effects of sin in the justified are fully removed only as they die, undergo judgment, and encounter the purifying love of Christ. The justified are transformed from their condition at death to the condition with which they will be blessed in eternal glory. All, even martyrs and saints of the highest order, will find the encounter with the Risen Christ transformative in ways beyond human comprehension.

1. Christ transforms those who enter into eternal life. This change is a work of God’s grace. It can be rightly understood as our final and perfect conformation to Christ (Phil 3:21). The fire of Christ’s love burns away all that is incompatible with living in the direct presence of God. It is the complete death of the old person, leaving only the new person in Christ.
   **
   7. Scripture tells us little about the process of the transformation from this life to entrance into eternal life. Categories of space and time can be applied only analogously.

Lastly, neither Jesus nor Paul issued provisions for denominations, conflicting doctrines, or disagteement on nonessentials (call them different communities). Paul indicated the church should be one. In any event, that’s off the topic.

Agreed, yet division has been part of the Universal Church, the Church Catholic since long before the Reformation era.
It isn’t off topic, when the conversation is about sola fide, when posts appear that are not accurate about sola fide.

Jon

 

[mattp0625]

Correct. So be specific about who you are talking about.

I’ve heard Orthodox Christians say the same about Rome, and that we just followed in your footsteps.

Please supply me with a link to the Catholic document that says Baptism in a Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, etc. communion is a quasi-Baptism.
And a Catholic as notable as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger used words quite the opposite of the disrespectful language in your post.

Since when is the salvation granting presence of Christ something Luther made up, or quasi?

That’s not what I said. I said that Lutherans believe in cleansing/purgation necessary for entry to Heaven. I’d encourage you to become a bit more informed.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

Agreed, yet division has been part of the Universal Church, the Church Catholic since long before the Reformation era.
It isn’t off topic, when the conversation is about sola fide, when posts appear that are not accurate about sola fide.

Jon

It’s very clear that Catholics do not accept Lutheran form of Eucharist.

Augustine very clearly wrote about purgatory. That is very much not Protestant doctrine.

Orthodox are hard pressed to predate Peter’s succession to Linus and Clement.

I think you all know this, which makes the conversation rather nonproductive.

 

[benhur]

I noticed sola fide was not mentioned above

Hi Matt,

Correct, I did not write sola fide anywhere above, only " the danger of works gone a wry as justifying, and of the differing types of faith, one dead with no works." Isn’t that the heart of this specific sola fide issue?

Not only are the sacraments Augustine administered a direct contradiction of sola fide,

Only if you think sacraments must be be justifying. Did James say anything about sacraments being included as part of faith proving works ?

but Augustine also wrote about the doctrine of purgatory - that one may need to be purged before entering heaven and that the prayers of others can have merit for those in purgatory. This certainly does not align with sola fide.

I am not claiming Augustine to be “protestant” nor Catholic as we know those terms 1000 to 1500 years later. I have said he himself evolved and showed the state of flux the church was in, even that he later helped lay the foundation for much of what the church would become. Purgatory is a good example where he is agnostic (good for discussion,either way,maybe ,maybe not) about it at first, but later changed.

Additionally, Luther is quoted as saying he would not include James in his bible among the chief books since James “mangles” the scriptures and (supposedly) “opposes Paul” and the proper view of justification - which should incorporate sola fide.

yes, sounds like frustration at the writer for not being more concise given the interpretational dilemma and misapplication that it culminated into. Maybe James himself would have modified his own writing had he come back into Luther’s time…it would not be the first time that a church writer would recant or modify/clarify a position on seeing the playing out of his statements, or the misapplication or misunderstanding of them. Augustine himself had to recant on an earlier position that Peter was the rock to Jesus being the rock.

That said - as shown above, different Protestants nuance sola scirptura in different ways using different words. We can nuance it and say primary or equal or surpassing authority.

Understand. Just that sometimes I think detractors use that healthy “flexibility” against it by picking the least tenable "nuance’’, even the least existent “nuance”,and throwing it all out. Kind of like one looking at all the practices and nuances to Mary veneration, picking the worst one, or extreme one like Mary worship by some, a few, and throw it all out. One that is ingenuous to his knowledge knows that is improper and contrary to actual CC teaching and not correct veneration of Mary.

Either way, we know that the canonized New Testament was not finalized until Augustine, Damascus and the Synod of Hippo. So, which is prime? Lastly, sola scriptura is not found in scripture (again - “profitable for teaching” is a large stretch. Paul also says that Mark is profitable).

if you mean by "prime’ what is “first”, are you saying there was no Writ before the NT, on which to prove Christ, and Christology, even the gospel ?

What happened before the bible was fully canonized

OT writ was never canonized yet…

Christ left a teaching church

Yes Christ left the apostles and his disciples with OT writ and soon forthcoming their own writ to be our foundation. Never did following office holders/ teachers not have writ as normative.

Additionally, the further back one goes in Christian history, the more the church fathers wrote of the sacraments, particularly the real presence of the Eucharist, as well as the authority of bishops by way of apostolic succession. Apostolic succession (tradition), and the sacraments, were indeed well formed by the time Augustine came around…These (solas) indeed were new doctrines in the 16th century.

Understand. Actually , i think the more you go forward from the beginning of church history you see the evolving of some of the sacraments, and of some of the offices and some doctrine. It then makes it a bit more difficult to say then just what is new.

For example, Sec Vat, brought about something"new", masses in the vernacular. Many folks balked and still do. But is it “new”?

The point is that these are all inferences and assertions in support of solas when not explicitly spelled out anywhere and where nuanced explanations are required.

Well, I laugh and say not here , not now to discuss, as if all of this has not been hashed out for centuries, in detail and specifics, beyond my grasp at the moment.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

[Hi Ben,
Except that Luther admits that Augustine believed that works do justify.

Hi D,

OK. Does Luther say he contradicts Augustine or vice versa ? I mean some might say works justifies faith , and that faith justifies the believer.

Except in *On The Care To Be Had For The Dead, *

[/QUOTE]

 

[benhur]

No one with any common sense would claim that. Certainly it is inferred to some extent, but not taught. Hence, it is not a doctrine. It is a practice, a praxis of the Church.

Hi Jon,

I like this (and needed it) thanks

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi D,

OK. Does Luther say he contradicts Augustine or vice versa ? I mean some might say works justifies faith , and that faith justifies the believer.
Ok. On less important doctrines he may have bowed to tradition. Even on the Immaculate Conception, he admits as much. Sad to see. Like writ says this (all have sinned) but tradition says this (except for Mary), and I(Augustine) office holder and respected theologian of the church will go with the tradition of the church. It could be admirable, it could be poor compromise, going with the flow, not rocking the comfortable boat you are in. Perhaps he would change his mind had he seen future evolving of Marian doctrine and moreso practice, like he changed his mind from Peter being the rock to Christ being the rock.
The inflexibility is not in sacrificing one’s particular truth, but in not allowing someones else’s truth to be also considered, for wiser purposes.

Because a church rules on something does not take it out of the realm of prioritizing its relative significance to all other points of faith, of it being "major or minor’’. To say otherwise could be construed as protecting the church more than the truth (the crux of the reformation ?).

For instance, early on Augustine is agnostic towards purgatory , leaves it open to discussion, understanding the existence of differing points of faith on it. He did solidify his position later i think , but not to a point of unwise schism.
I agree that the reformation was coming no matter what, and was much deeper than "indulgences’’.

As to what is new, maybe, maybe not problematic. If the church did not evolve in some practices, offices, and doctrine, “new” would be problematic. As I noted in previous post, Vat 2 brought masses into the vernacular, of which some folks balked and still do as something “new”.

One also has to be careful in that perhaps you don’t find in the early church need for distinction of sola fide, because you did not have the abuse of justifying works as rampantly unchallenged, (James to the extreme), as in Luther’s time. Paul did challenge justifying works, as James challenged improper unjustifying faith.

if I ever come to compromise solas, it is with this , that whether they were perfect in truth or not, they served a purpose of balancing other practices,doctrines that may also have not been perfect in truth. Kind of like how we adopted racial quotas in the 60-70’s in hiring /admissions to offset previous chronic discriminations . Both the before and after, the problem and the fix, were racially discriminatory.

As to Mcgrath, how can he say it is not found in church and then say when they did use a type of sola, it was not the same type ? And by which reformer(s) ? Does Mcgrath say his type of sola fide , is unapostolic ?

Blessings

 

[JonNC]

=mattp0625;14383871]It’s very clear that Catholics do not accept Lutheran form of Eucharist.

Here you state the obvious, though less and less Church dividing situation. But that’s not what you said. You stated that the sacraments were “quasi-sacraments”. That is contrary to what your Church teaches about Lutherans and others, not to mention disrespectful.

Augustine very clearly wrote about purgatory. That is very much not Protestant doctrine.

There is no such thing as protestant doctrine. But I never claimed there was.

Orthodox are hard pressed to predate Peter’s succession to Linus and Clement.

I don’t think they’d try to, though their understanding of what that means is closer to the early Church, ISTM.

I think you all know this, which makes the conversation rather nonproductive.

I’m more concerned, Mattp, about what you’ve said about Lutherans and others that isn’t true, including the things you’ve implied about sola fide. I don’t think it is malicious. I just don’t want lurkers to get the wrong idea of what sola fide is. The sacraments are not a contradiction of sola fide. Neither are bishops, nor church polity, nor the very idea of doctrines.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Justification is by grace alone through faith alone.

Jon

whether*** by*** or through is in front of faith

Faith alone does legitimately appear once in scripture. ***NOT ***is in front of it

James 2:24
J:

The short hand sola fide is a statement regarding the fact that justification is a work of God in us, that we are therefore only justified by faith, and not by works. Justification is a gift, not earned or merited by anything we do.

That is all it means. It isn’t an exclusion of good works.

Jon

Obviously scripture says differently

And this is why the heretic Martin Luther wanted to remove James from his NT

 

[steve_b]

St. Paul, AFAIK, mentions only faith - grace through faith - with the caveat that it be a faith working through love. Galatian 5:6

To which Luther responds beautifully,
** Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love**. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, "
Jon

The same with love. If one does NOT obey what Jesus says and established (IOW do what ever He says to do) then one can’t claim to love Jesus. It 's just words

#23
J:

In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing," i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God.

Circumcision was a work of law NOT considered a good work.
J:

On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

IOW good works count.

 

[steve_b]

Where are you getting your information about sola fide?
The sacraments are very much in keeping with sola fide, and Lutherans themselves teach the necessity of being cleansed/purged to enter Heaven.

I’m happy you’ve noticed that protestant is not a “denomination”, communion, or church.
So, which what is prime? Each communion, in the same manner as sees prior to and since the Reformation era, determine the canon (rule) regarding scripture and how it is used.

No one with any common sense would claim that. Certainly it is inferred to some extent, but not taught. Hence, it is not a doctrine. It is a practice, a praxis of the Church.

Amen, and it is still a teaching Church. That’s where things like doctrines and canons come from, and that is perfectly in keeping with sola scriptura.

Jon

Jon

SS is not scriptural, but don’t take my word for it.

These articles are a short read. The followup rebuttals and answers after each article otoh, makes each article way more voluminous, but informational

if you’re interested


Why I’m Catholic: Sola Scriptura Isn’t Scriptural, Part I

Why I’m Catholic: Sola Scriptura Isn’t Scriptural, Part III

 

[JonNC]

Jon

whether*** by*** or through is in front of faith

Faith alone does legitimately appear once in scripture. ***NOT ***is in front of it

James 2:24

Obviously scripture says differently

And this is why the heretic Martin Luther wanted to remove James from his NT

Source,please, that quotes father Martin as wanting to remove James from the NY (he never had his own NT). He did say that he did not consider it one of his chief books. He always spoke on the issue as his opinion. We’ve discussed this berfore, Steve. He had the privilege to hold his opinion, just like others who held differing views. It is only some modern Catholics who wish to hold him to a different standard on an opinion of the canon.

Was he wrong about James? I think so. Was he permitted by the Church to have his opinion? It is undeniable.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon

SS is not scriptural, but don’t take my word for it.

These articles are a short read. The followup rebuttals and answers after each article otoh, makes each article way more voluminous, but informational

if you’re interested


Why I’m Catholic: Sola Scriptura Isn’t Scriptural, Part I

Why I’m Catholic: Sola Scriptura Isn’t Scriptural, Part III

Thanks for the links. I think I said earlier in this thread that to claim SS is explicit in scripture isn’t something to be defended. It is implied in number of places, but that is not enough to claim it is explicit. It is, therefore, not a doctrine.
But the same thing can be said about the innovation of universal jurisdiction. Peter is clearly held as a leader. Christ speaks to him in this way. But none of the early councils, and no where in scripture is universal jurisdiction explicit.

So, we find ourselves discussing, not how we can find common ground, but instead emphasizing, and in the case where misrepresentation (often by accident) occurs, we expand division. Meanwhile, leaders in the CC and in non-Catholic communions are on a different track, one toward greater understanding. Even in this thread I’ve linked to one of those dialogue documents. And yet amateur apologists (on both sides) misrepresent the position of others.

Frankly, it becomes tiring correcting the same misstatements over and over. I’m sure Catholics of good will feel the same.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I like this (and needed it) thanks

Blessings

:tiphat:

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon

whether*** by*** or through is in front of faith

Faith alone does legitimately appear once in scripture. ***NOT ***is in front of it

James 2:24

Obviously scripture says differently

And this is why the heretic Martin Luther wanted to remove James from his NT

From the Vatican:

1. The Common Understanding of Justification

14.The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church have together listened to the good news proclaimed in Holy Scripture. This common listening, together with the theological conversations of recent years, has led to a shared understanding of justification. This encompasses a consensus in the basic truths; the differing explications in particular statements are compatible with it.

15**.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God.** The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess:** By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works**.[11]

16.All people are called by God to salvation in Christ. Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith. Faith is itself God’s gift through the Holy Spirit who works through word and sacrament in the community of believers and who, at the same time, leads believers into that renewal of life which God will bring to completion in eternal life.

17.We also share the conviction that the message of justification directs us in a special way towards the heart of the New Testament witness to God’s saving action in Christ:** it tells us that as sinners our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith, and never can merit in any way.**

18.Therefore the doctrine of justification, which takes up this message and explicates it, is more than just one part of Christian doctrine. It stands in an essential relation to all truths of faith, which are to be seen as internally related to each other. It is an indispensable criterion which constantly serves to orient all the teaching and practice of our churches to Christ. When Lutherans emphasize the unique significance of this criterion, they do not deny the interrelation and significance of all truths of faith. When Catholics see themselves as bound by several criteria, they do not deny the special function of the message of justification. Lutherans and Catholics share the goal of confessing Christ in all things, who alone is to be trusted above all things as the one Mediator (1 Tim 2:5f) through whom God in the Holy Spirit gives himself and pours out his renewing gifts. [cf. Sources for section 3].

There is no denial of the necessity of good works in sola fide.

I will finish by re-linking Jim Akin’s column. He seems to have the best understanding of all Catholic apologists.

jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone

Jon

 

[benhur]

From the Vatican:

There is no denial of the necessity of good works in sola fide.

I will finish by re-linking Jim Akin’s column. He seems to have the best understanding of all Catholic apologists.

jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone

Jon

Hi Jon,

i like your tone of reconciliation of thought on points of faith here. I am reminded that the CC is what, when every CC doctrine is justified, weighted against …writ, to find derivation explicitly, or implicitly and to find cohesiveness with and not against it? Sounds like writ is normative here.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

OK. Does Luther say he contradicts Augustine or vice versa ? I mean some might say works justifies faith , and that faith justifies the believer.

Yes, Luther holds that Augustine did not believe in sola fide. Luther goes on to say the same of the other ECF’s.

Ok. On less important doctrines he may have bowed to tradition.

Actually no. He says unequivocally that if something is not found in Scripture, it is enough for the weight of the Catholic Church to make it doctrine. He does not differentiate on whether that weight can be brought to bear between minor or major doctrines. He did not believe in sola scriptura, no matter how much you try to spin it.

Even on the Immaculate Conception, he admits as much. Sad to see. Like writ says this (all have sinned) but tradition says this (except for Mary), and I(Augustine) office holder and respected theologian of the church will go with the tradition of the church.

But it is easy to see that you read writ wrong. That is why you cannot understand the Scriptures. By the way, the word all in Mark 1:5 is easily disproven. So all does not always mean all in the bible.

It could be admirable, it could be poor compromise, going with the flow, not rocking the comfortable boat you are in.

Or he knew the Church taught the truth, and so he followed it.

Perhaps he would change his mind had he seen future evolving of Marian doctrine and moreso practice, like he changed his mind from Peter being the rock to Christ being the rock.

You misread Augustine. He didn’t change his mind. He believed both Peter and Christ were the rock, which was foretold in Isaiah that there would be a foundation within a foundation. Depending on who Augustine was writing against was which rock he would stress. In that same book where you say Augustine changed his mind he, says that Peter was named after the rock Christ.

'Peter having been named after this rock ’
(Retractations 1:21).

So quite clearly there he says they are both rocks. Augustine did not change his mind at all. You just do not understand him.

The inflexibility is not in sacrificing one’s particular truth, but in not allowing someones else’s truth to be also considered, for wiser purposes.

Truth is objective. And the Church did consider that someone else’s truth. It was quite easy to see that someone else’s truth was actually a falsehood, so the Church rejected the someone else’s truth that wasn’t.

Because a church rules on something does not take it out of the realm of prioritizing its relative significance to all other points of faith, of it being "major or minor’’. To say otherwise could be construed as protecting the church more than the truth.

Clarify please.

For instance, early on Augustine is agnostic towards purgatory , leaves it open to discussion, understanding the existence of differing points of faith on it. He did solidify his position later i think , but not to a point of unwise schism.
I agree that the reformation was coming no matter what, and was much deeper than "indulgences’’.

So are you saying that if in solidifying his position on Purgatory, if it would have caused Catholics to leave the Church, he would have watered down his position? Oh how little you understand Augustine.

As to what is new, maybe, maybe not problematic. If the church did not evolve in some practices, offices, and doctrine, “new” would be problematic. As I noted in previous post, Vat 2 brought masses into the vernacular, of which some folks balked and still do as something “new”.

Really, this has no bearing.

One also has to be careful in that perhaps you don’t find in the early church need for distinction of sola fide, because you did not have the abuse of justifying works as rampantly unchallenged, (James to the extreme), as in Luther’s time. Paul did challenge justifying works, as James challenged improper unjustifying faith.

Well, Augustine does say that works justify, and without a doubt his reading of Paul goes against how the Reformers read Paul. Funny thing is Clement, who knew Peter, and probably knew Paul, also said works justify. There is probably a good chance that you are misreading Paul. In fact one Reformed historian advised his readers not to read the ECF’s, as they were obviously not Christian.

if I ever come to compromise solas, it is with this , that whether they were perfect in truth or not, they served a purpose of balancing other practices,doctrines that may also have not been perfect in truth. Kind of like how we adopted racial quotas in the 60-70’s in hiring /admissions to offset previous chronic discriminations . Both the before and after, the problem and the fix, were racially discriminatory.

Non-truth can never remedy non-truth, it can only make things worse.

 

[Duane1966]

As to Mcgrath, how can he say it is not found in church and then say when they did use a type of sola, it was not the same type ? And by which reformer(s) ? Does Mcgrath say his type of sola fide , is unapostolic ?

Blessings

From called to communion.com

The evidence that the early church fathers did not hold JBFA is fairly straightforward and uncontroversial. Leading Protestant historians have conceded this for well over a century. Thus, the Protestant McGrath can write, “The first centuries of the western theological tradition appear to be characterized by a ‘works-righteousness’ approach to justification . . . The pre-Augustinian theological tradition is practically of one voice in asserting the freedom of the human will . . . The Protestant understanding of the nature of justification thus represents a theological novum.”37 T.F. Torrance similarly complains, “**The plain fact is that the Church of the Apostolic Fathers has but a very feeble understanding of the great truths of the Gospel **[sic].”38 And finally, the legendary Harnack concludes: “The moralistic view, in which eternal life is the wages and reward of a perfect moral life . . . took the place of first importance at a very early period.”39

McGrath sees the fact that the early Church did not hold to JBFA as having little theological significance today.

 

[Duane1966]

Hi Jon,

i like your tone of reconciliation of thought on points of faith here. I am reminded that the CC is what, when every CC doctrine is justified, weighted against …writ, to find derivation explicitly, or implicitly and to find cohesiveness with and not against it? Sounds like writ is normative here.

Blessings

Yes, but who decides when the doctrine is cohesive, and when it is against? The Church that Jesus established? Or individuals who twist the meaning of Scripture to their, and others destruction? These are the key questions.