A new and devastating quickie against Faith Alone?

[benhur]

benhur.

Attempting to rationalize justification by “faith ALONE” you said . . . .

That’s kind of what I thought you might say.

OK. So its now justification by faith ALONE AND somebody else’s WORKS. Or is it something else?

Hi C,

well what I posted was " to their faith and to their works and what they signify"…one person

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

These will be my last postings, as I am sure the moderator is talking about me getting off topic.

No, you believe it in a modified form. You believe there is this elect group that has eternal security. This elect group is referring to often in Scripture and so much of Scripture is directed to them alone( most of Romans 8 and Romans 9 ).

Of course the elect have eternal security. But no one can know if they are elect or not, as they do not know for sure whether they will persevere to the end. And like Augustine, I believe the elect can cooperate with God’s grace, be justified, and then turn away. But because they are elect, it also means at some point in their life they will repent and turn back to God. And like Augustine, I also believe you can be justified by God, turn away, and never come back to God. And this is exactly what Catholicism has taught from the start.

Because has the text says, they knew the path of righteousness. They are like the ones in 1:2:19. They were a part of the ministry of the Gospel, they partook of the Sacraments, and witnessed the power of the Holy Spirit. To turn away from this is to make your last state worse than the first where you had not had this experience and knowledge.

Correct. But according to you, they could not have turned back if they were justified. But if they were not justified at all, then they must have been reprobate all the time, so the last state could not have been worse than the first. The only way the last state could be worse than the first, is if they had been justified at some point in between.

Evidence please? Not just an assertion.

St. Cyprian:

"Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"

Who sits in the seat of Peter?

Bl. Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus says in 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:

Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, **that it is free from all taint of heresy,** and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.

Pope St. Clement I the Martyr of Rome (November 23) says in 95 [Letter to the Corinthians 59]: "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin."

Clement says it is God speaking through him, ergo, what he is saying is infallible. I believe it was an Anglican theologian of the 19th century (this theologian was no friend to Catholicism, and I am paraphrasing) who said in Clement’s letter can be seen the abominations of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. Keep in mind that Clement was also a disciple of Peter.

Let’s look at infallibility in this light. Does Jesus give to Peter the power to bind and loose, and does what he binds and looses on Earth, are they also bound and loosed in Heaven? Clearly yes.

Can anything ever be loosed in Heaven that is fallible? Clearly no.

The doctrine of infallibility is easily derived right there, without ever needing a quote from an early father.

Could you provide a url to your source?

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-assumption-of-mary-in-history and ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM

Well, this is the seed. He believed the elect had eternal security. The weird thing about this is that the Scripture refers to all believers as elect. You will notice Romans 8 continues to build on 8:30 where it goes on to say

Well duh. Of course the elect have eternal security. Everyone believes that. Elect means they are going to Heaven. But that is not what is in question. Augustine also believed the elect could be justified, and then could fall away. He just believed at some point before their death they would repent and turn back to God. This, you do not believe. You do not believe that the elect can ever fall away from God, once they have been justified. He also believed that no one could know if they were one of the elect. Clearly you and Augustine are not even close to being on the same page.

You will notice all of this about God’s elect. So your position is worse than the eternal security one that you complain about. If you are not elect( and you might not be just a ole regular believer ) these verses are not for you. Did he not spare His Son for you? What part of these are true for the non-elect justified believer?

All of these are true for all Christians, if they persevere to the end. Here is the difference, if someone fell away from the faith, I would say they did not persevere. In your paradigm, there is no perseverance really ever involved. If they fall away, it is not because they didn’t persevere. It can’t be, because they were never justified.

Everyone disobeys, everyday , even those you deem the elect that cannot fall away, right?

Wrong. I believe the elect can fall away, they will just not stay fallen away. And if they were not to repent of the jumping, then they would not be one of the elect. But this does not mean they were not one of that group that you were watching. You on the other hand believe that the elect will never jump, ergo, no reason to watch them.

 

[Duane1966]

Oh so Peter is not one of the elect? Remember you said the elect does not lose their justification, but here you are saying Peter did. This is interesting, even if not puzzling. But I guess this is where trying to impose an interpretation on Scripture leads you to.

Read what I have posted carefully. You will find that I have never once said the elect could not lose their justification. I did say that the elect would persevere to the end. But this was not meant to imply that an elect could not fall away. Just that if an elect does fall away, that person will repent and turn back to God and return to persevering. If you inferred from my saying that in persevering to the end, that no elect would ever fall away, then I am sorry for not being more clear.

Well, I’m sorry but Dr. Scot McKnight is not here to question or examine on his interpretation.

St. Optatus, and Haydock in his biblical commentary both say that passage in John is about a schism in the early Church. To the early church fathers, anyone who left the Catholic Church, was an anti-Christ. Even if the person leaving professed that Jesus was Lord and God.

Yes, but suppose you are wrong in believing the Catholic Church? You could do everything they tell you and you will end up being damned. And you have no way of knowing you are on the wrong track.

True, but only if Christianity is false.

We know He founded a visible church. Many Protestant scholars admit that the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus founded. They either believe that the Catholic Church apostatized at some point, or they believe she fell off the track at some point before the split with the Orthodox. The Reformers believed the Catholic Church needed to be reformed to an earlier time in her history, when she was pristine in their eyes. Notice, implicit in their desire to reform her, are at least two admissions by the Reformers that they believed she was** the** Church founded by Christ in this way:

1.) Why reform something that you do not believe is the Church founded by Christ? Forget the reform, and find the Church He founded.

2.) Several of the Confessions of the Reformers accept some of the early councils of the Catholic Church. Again, why accept these early councils of a church, unless you believed that church at the time of those early councils, was the Church founded by Christ?

Now when examining the claims of the Catholic Church, and you believe what Jesus taught, then if one reaches the conclusion that she is the Church that Christ founded, then to not do as she says would lead to damnation. For He said He who hears you, hears Me…

You have obviously reached the conclusion that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Jesus founded.

You left out the most obvious choice. You are just wrong in believing Papal Infallibility.

My being wrong would still not change the fact that if the Catholic Church is not infallible, I cannot know if the Scriptures are infallible, for she is the one that compiled these writings and said they were inerrant and inspired. Which is why Augustine said he would not believe in the bible if not for the Catholic Church. But if she is fallible I have no certainty that the right books are in the bible.

The Old Testament church didn’t need it to survive.

Perhaps if they had had an infallible authority to turn to, God would not have constantly said how unfaithful they were.

The East does not need it and they survive. Protestants don’t need it and we survive.

So you are one body with all the other Protestants? Great, I am sure you will stop in at a Church and fellowship with the ones that teach that OSAS is an abomination.

BTW, Jesus didn’t say He would guide the Church into all truth

So you are saying that you belong to a church that may sometimes teach truth, and sometimes teach error. How sad. You will say you have an infallible guide in Scripture, but that still needs an infallible interpreter. You surely don’t believe your pastor has the gift of infallibility. If you should disagree with him/her, then you will go with your interpretation of the bible. You won’t admit it, but you have made yourself the infallible interpreter of Scripture.

and definitely not the Bishop of Rome,

Well many scholars do admit that Peter was bishop of Rome, as attested to by many church fathers. So technically you at least believe one bishop had the charism.

he told that to the Apostles( with a ‘s’) and resulted in the infallibility.

So you are saying that Jesus gave this gift to some early members of His Church, but not to His Church as a whole. You seem to be saying He felt this early church needed to be taught and guided infallibly, but that it was okay if after they died for His church to be taught and guided fallibly. You do not feel that the gift of teaching infallibly that He gave to the Apostles could be given to their successors. Seems a strange way to build a church that would last and stay unified forever.

What??? Have you even read the context of this verse? I don’t see how you can come to that conclusion if you did.

Yes, I know the context quite well. Tell me this. If many were called and only a few chosen, does that mean that only a few responded? Or does it mean that many responded, but only a few were deemed adequate?

 

[mattp0625]

Save a few verses that could be construed toward sola fide, most of the bible does not support it.

Romans 3 is often used to support sola fide, yet Romans 2 indicates that not following the moral law will induce God’s wrath on the day of judgement.

The sheep and goats narrative in Matthew 25 provides strong language about good works which are not optional.

Most of the bible (James, the gospels, Tobias, etc.) indicates that we must repent and do good works.

The Catholic view is that we do this, strengthened by God’s grace, by our free will in choosing to do what Jesus commands.

Historically, sola fide was initiated in the 16th century by Luther.

Augustine (a 4th and 5th century Catholic bishop) did not subscribe to sola fide. Rather, he expressed a high view of faith and scripture, which is not quite the same thing. He was a Catholic bishop who administered sacraments, including the Eucharist and ordaining priests. He also wrote about the intercession of the saints and purgatory.

 

[Cathoholic]

SolaScriptura. God predestines no one for Hell.

CCC 1037a God predestines no one to go to hell; 620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”: 621 . . . .

At the end of time, all people will end up either in Heaven (the Elect) or Hell (the Reprobate).

The idea that people who are “born again” are automatically one of “the elect” is taught NOWHERE in Scripture.

Since God is omniscient, He ALREADY KNOWS (even before the dawn of time) who is among the elect and who make up the reprobate.

But that knowledge of God’s, does NOT cancel out the free will of humanity. Nor does it mean grace will be unavailable.

Everyone has a Heavenly inheritance available.

But by their own free will, some people choose to reject grace, thereby rejecting that inheritance to their own peril and of their own volition.

Although by our good works (allowing God to work in us and through us) we can make our “calling and election sure.”

Since God already knows our “calling and election”, the “sure” can only be for us.

By your work and your perseverance in good works you can see if you are among the elect.

And this certainty is predicated upon persevering to the end.

That’s WHY Jesus can tell us he who "perseveres or “endures” to the end will be “saved.”

MATTHEW 24:13 13 But he who endures to the end will be saved.

---

There is “no condemnation” for those “in Christ Jesus”.

But if you don’t REMAIN in Christ Jesus then there IS the potential for condemnation.

---

There is “no condemnation” for those “in Christ Jesus”.

ROMANS 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

But if you don’t REMAIN in Christ Jesus then there IS the potential for condemnation.

Jesus says in John 15: "I am the vine, you are the branches. REMAIN IN ME (notice He is talking to people who are IN Christ Jesus. But they must REMAIN in Jesus). If you do NOT REMAIN IN ME (notice you can choose to NOT remain in Christ Jesus), Jesus says you will be cast away and “burned”.

No “Once saved, always saved” anywhere in the Bible.

 

[Cathoholic]

Some people think: “I’m IN-Jesus Therefore I Can’t Be Lost!”

Please listen to Jesus’ warnings to those who are IN Him.

JOHN 15:1-2 1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit,
while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

Notice you can be IN-Jesus, but if you don’t bear fruit, you will be CUT OFF from Christ!

Objector: Well that merely means backsliding. I would still be saved.

Answer: No. Notice the FATHER cuts **off **branches that are IN JESUS that don’t bear fruit!

Q: Maybe that just means “backsliding”? Or maybe he was never REALLY “in Jesus” in the first place.

A: That’s not what the passage says or implies! But let’s read on. Jesus is addressing people who are “already clean.”

JOHN 15:3 3 **You **are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.

(Notice this is addressing people who are “already clean”.)

Objector: Well just because the guy is clean doesn’t mean he’s IN Jesus.

Answer: Oh yes it does. Jesus says so in the very next verse…

JOHN 15:3-4 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain IN ME, and I will remain in you.

Notice he is IN Jesus!

But . . . . he must REMAIN IN Jesus!

JOHN 15:3-5 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Why would Jesus be telling us to REMAIN in him if we were never IN HIM in the first place?

Because he’s telling this to people who are “IN JESUS” in the first place.

Jesus doesn’t say they were NEVER IN ME in the first place!

Jesus says these people ARE IN Him!

Q: This means we are just “backsliding,” then we would get to Heaven anyway right?

A: Wrong. Let’s listen to what Jesus says about this. Please listen to Jesus!

JOHN 15:6a 6 If anyone does **not **remain in me . . . .

Notice you can choose to “not remain in (Jesus) me!”

But look at the consequences of this choice to not remain in Jesus!

Does Jesus say this . . (below) . . ?

NOT JOHN 15:6 but a phantom verse 6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that withers and loses crowns; such slightly withered branches are still in me though because once they are IN ME, they can never be thrown aside and burned, but rather they will remain in me anyway.

Is this what our Lord Jesus says? NO!

Now let’s look at what is REALLY in Scripture.

JOHN 15:6 6 If anyone does not remain in me,
he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers;
such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

Does Jesus use this imagery (of being “thrown into the fire” where they “wither” and “burn”) to tell someone he is “saved” and headed for Heaven?

No! It doesn’t fit the context.

Our Lord and Savior Jesus is solemnly warning them, that if they choose to not REMAIN in Him (notice you are IN Jesus, but you’ve GOT to REMAIN in Him and you can choose not to do so), they will condemn themselves to Hell.

If we DON’T REMAIN “IN JESUS” we will be cast aside and BURNED!

• Does being “In Jesus” sound like someone who was never in Jesus in the first place? No!
• Does this sound like we can’t walk away? No!
• Does this sound like someone who is merely backsliding? No!
• Does this sound like someone who is saved anyway? No!

If someone who’s in Jesus walks away and doesn’t come back are they saved?

NO! They will be cast aside (no longer in the vine-Jesus) and burned!

The people being warned here about being cast aside and burned, are people who are “in Jesus!”

This is a warning to Christians!

John 15:1-6does not teach or suggest OSAS (nor does any verse). John 15:1-6 specifically refutes the false doctrine of OSAS.

ROMANS 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

But if you choose NOT to REMAIN IN CHRIST JESUS, you will wither and die and be cast into the fire.

 

[spina1953]

Faith alone does not work for the simple reason among what others have said against faith alone is what St. James said faith without good works is dead faith. Another way of putting it is to say faith alone means nothing if there is no good works; its actions speak louder than words. Converted Pharicees were teaching that no one needed to do any works at all in order to be saved That one only needed faith and did not need to do any good works. St. James spoke against this early form of faith alone. People can say whatever they like but if there is no action then the words are just words and means nothing as anyone can use words but if there is no action or works to back it up what good then are the words one speaks? At the other extreme thinking that doing good works alone will not save anyone just as just saying I have faith but I don’t need to do any good works because I’m already saved. The only ones that are saved are those in heaven, the rest of us living on this earth have not yet been saved only the promise that if we do God’s will as Christ taught we can be saved in due time when our life on earth is over.

 

[Rau]

The debate strikes me as hollow. Perhaps both sides are right - after all, what sort of genuine faith manifests in a life with no good works? None I can imagine.

 

[JonNC]

The debate strikes me as hollow. Perhaps both sides are right - after all, what sort of genuine faith manifests in a life with no good works? None I can imagine.

Exactly

Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:6

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

Faith without works is dead

 

[Cathoholic]

Rau.

You said:

The debate strikes me as hollow. . . . . after all, what sort of genuine faith manifests in a life with no good works? None I can imagine.

If you want to think that Rau, that’s fine with me.

You can sin mortally against charity Rau. You can also sin mortally against hope too (as did Judas).

And you can sin mortally against faith. And if you do, it does not mean you necessarily sin against hope or charity. You MAY, but you may NOT too.

Here is what the Council of Trent warns about this issue . . . .

COUNCIL OF TRENT (Decree on Justification Session VI)
**CHAPTER XV.

That, by every mortal sin, grace is lost, but not faith.**

. . . . In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost . . .

 

[Rau]

If you want to think that Rau, that’s fine with me.

OK.

Good works don’t guarantee faith. But one wonders the character of faith that produces no good works.

 

[Cathoholic]

Rau. You mentioned . . . .

Good works don’t guarantee faith. . . .

You are correct Rau. Good works do not guarantee faith.

And faith doesn’t guarantee charity/good works.

COUNCIL OF TRENT (Decree on Justification)

Canon XXVIII

If anyone says that with the loss of grace through sin faith is also lost with it, or that the faith which remains is not a true faith, though it is not a living one, . . . . let him be anathema.

 

[Rau]

You are correct Rau. Good works do not guarantee faith.

Agreed.

And faith doesn’t guarantee charity/good works.

Certainly there will be some who outwardly professs great faith, and may sincerely believe they have it, yet display little or no charity. Such must hold to a lifeless kind of “faith”. One that pays not much heed to the positive precepts of the law.

 

[benhur]

Save a few verses that could be construed toward sola fide, most of the bible does not support it.

Romans 3 is often used to support sola fide, yet Romans 2 indicates that not following the moral law will induce God’s wrath on the day of judgement.

The sheep and goats narrative in Matthew 25 provides strong language about good works which are not optional.

Most of the bible (James, the gospels, Tobias, etc.) indicates that we must repent and do good works.

The Catholic view is that we do this, strengthened by God’s grace, by our free will in choosing to do what Jesus commands.

HI Matt,

Thank you for agreeing that some scripture speak of faith alone. I would think most also agree with scriptures that speak of works. Some might agree with your last general statement of what CC beliefs.

Historically, sola fide was initiated in the 16th century by Luther.

Why ?

Now we leave the general statements behind, and see where the rubber hits the road.

Was there a chronic problem with works that called for such an acute response of sola fide ?

Augustine (a 4th and 5th century Catholic bishop) did not subscribe to sola fide. Rather, he expressed a high view of faith and scripture,

Well, sola fide is just one of the five solas, and one of them is sola scriptura. They do not linguistically cancel each other out. Their is a literary and historical context.

Augustine is a fascinating saint and his writing reveal an evolving theology on some of these issues. For sure he has quotes that could support all the solas, as well as quotes supporting their counterparts. He laid groundwork for what would become the CC as we know it. Loved by many, hated by a few, quoted by all. It’s in the eyes of the beholder.

Blessings

 

[mattp0625]

HI Matt,

Thank you for agreeing that some scripture speak of faith alone. I would think most also agree with scriptures that speak of works. Some might agree with your last general statement of what CC beliefs.
Why ?

Now we leave the general statements behind, and see where the rubber hits the road.

Was there a chronic problem with works that called for such an acute response of sola fide ?
Well, sola fide is just one of the five solas, and one of them is sola scriptura. They do not linguistically cancel each other out. Their is a literary and historical context.

Augustine is a fascinating saint and his writing reveal an evolving theology on some of these issues. For sure he has quotes that could support all the solas, as well as quotes supporting their counterparts. He laid groundwork for what would become the CC as we know it. Loved by many, hated by a few, quoted by all. It’s in the eyes of the beholder.

Blessings

I am only pointing out that no one held these doctrines until Luther. In other words, no one interpreted scripture that way until the 16th century.

I disagree with the idea that Augustine supported sola fide or sola scriptura. Having a favorable view of something is quite different than suggesting that same thing is all that is required (or sufficient, or primary).

Additionally, his position (bishop), administration of sacraments, and participation in synods (such as Hippo) directly contradict both solas. The notion that Augustine supported these solas is quite a stretch.

 

[JonNC]

I am only pointing out that no one held these doctrines until Luther. In other words, no one interpreted scripture that way until the 16th century.

I disagree with the idea that Augustine supported sola fide or sola scriptura. Having a favorable view of something is quite different than suggesting that same thing is all that is required (or sufficient, or primary).

Additionally, his position (bishop), administration of sacraments, and participation in synods (such as Hippo) directly contradict both solas. The notion that Augustine supported these solas is quite a stretch.

Why would being a bishop, administering sacraments, and participating in synods directly contradict both solas?

 

[Duane1966]

I am only pointing out that no one held these doctrines until Luther. In other words, no one interpreted scripture that way until the 16th century.

I disagree with the idea that Augustine supported sola fide or sola scriptura. Having a favorable view of something is quite different than suggesting that same thing is all that is required (or sufficient, or primary).

Additionally, his position (bishop), administration of sacraments, and participation in synods (such as Hippo) directly contradict both solas. The notion that Augustine supported these solas is quite a stretch.

*On The Care To Be Had For The Dead *St. Augustine says something that seemingly directly contradicts the doctrine of sola scriptura.

It is interesting to note that Luther himself said that St. Augustine did not believe in sola fide.

 

[benhur]

I am only pointing out that no one held these doctrines until Luther. In other words, no one interpreted scripture that way until the 16th century.

Hi Matt,

No doubt something happened in 16th century. No doubt Luther did not think it new but old, as his counterparts said it was all brand new.

Nothing is new under heaven. Whatever was happening in 16th century was not new in the sense that writ addresses the danger of works gone a wry as justifying, and of the differing types of faith, one dead with no works.

and disagree with the idea that Augustine supported sola fide or sola scriptura. Having a favorable view of something is quite different than suggesting that same thing is all that is required (or sufficient, or primary).

Augustine also had the luxury of be at an earlier time when “tradition” and Church structure was not as formed/ “settled” as it would after Augustine. He himself evolved in some of his convictions.

“all that is required, or sufficient or primary” are three different literary meanings. Certainly when Augustine says scripture as “surpassing authority” anywhere and everywhere it means something. Tough to deny his Writ’s “primary” normative role, for the church and its preachers teachers/councils.

Additionally, his position (bishop), administration of sacraments, and participation in synods (such as Hippo) directly contradict both solas.

The solas do not do away with bishops, sacraments, synods, councils. They all have Writ as their “surpassing authority”.

What came to a head with Luther was whether Tradition (Roman) was now equal to Writ, and that infallibly and without further theological questioning. Kind of like saying, " we , the church , are doing it, practicing it, it therefore must be right with previous defining and decreeing. The difference was that 1000 years had passed for the settling and solidifying of tradition, unlike Augustine’s time.

The very reason Augustine wrote so much was pretty much the same reason Luther posted his points out for discussion, as was customary. Some things were not settled , some tradition was still not a capital T yet, like Christology. Augustine reasoned with differing points of view, from both without the church and from within. He did not simply say or recite past decrees, councils and tradition or as directed by a pope. He reasoned in some grey areas as if tradition was not yet equal to Writ, or a capital T. The church culture was more flexible in more areas than Luther’s time. Yet some flexibility was still possible for Luther, as noted the customary academic challenge (95 thesis). Unfortunately, and some might say providentially, inflexibility over something as “minor” as indulgence practice, snowballed and eventually led to a schism as big as the previous one.

Blessings

 

[mattp0625]

Hi Matt,

No doubt something happened in 16th century. No doubt Luther did not think it new but old, as his counterparts said it was all brand new.

Nothing is new under heaven. Whatever was happening in 16th century was not new in the sense that writ addresses the danger of works gone a wry as justifying, and of the differing types of faith, one dead with no works. Augustine also had the luxury of be at an earlier time when “tradition” and Church structure was not as formed/ “settled” as it would after Augustine. He himself evolved in some of his convictions.

“all that is required, or sufficient or primary” are three different literary meanings. Certainly when Augustine says scripture as “surpassing authority” anywhere and everywhere it means something. Tough to deny his Writ’s “primary” normative role, for the church and its preachers teachers/councils.

The solas do not do away with bishops, sacraments, synods, councils. They all have Writ as their “surpassing authority”.

What came to a head with Luther was whether Tradition (Roman) was now equal to Writ, and that infallibly and without further theological questioning. Kind of like saying, " we , the church , are doing it, practicing it, it therefore must be right with previous defining and decreeing. The difference was that 1000 years had passed for the settling and solidifying of tradition, unlike Augustine’s time.

The very reason Augustine wrote so much was pretty much the same reason Luther posted his points out for discussion, as was customary. Some things were not settled , some tradition was still not a capital T yet, like Christology. Augustine reasoned with differing points of view, from both without the church and from within. He did not simply say or recite past decrees, councils and tradition or as directed by a pope. He reasoned in some grey areas as if tradition was not yet equal to Writ, or a capital T. The church culture was more flexible in more areas than Luther’s time. Yet some flexibility was still possible for Luther, as noted the customary academic challenge (95 thesis). Unfortunately, and some might say providentially, inflexibility over something as “minor” as indulgence practice, snowballed and eventually led to a schism as big as the previous one.

Blessings

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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. These indeed were new doctrines in the 16th century.

 

[Duane1966]

Hi Ben,

Hi Matt,

No doubt something happened in 16th century. No doubt Luther did not think it new but old, as his counterparts said it was all brand new.

Nothing is new under heaven. Whatever was happening in 16th century was not new in the sense that writ addresses the danger of works gone a wry as justifying, and of the differing types of faith, one dead with no works. Augustine also had the luxury of be at an earlier time when “tradition” and Church structure was not as formed/ “settled” as it would after Augustine. He himself evolved in some of his convictions.

Except that Luther admits that Augustine believed that works do justify.

No do"all that is required, or sufficient or primary" are three different literary meanings. Certainly when Augustine says scripture as “surpassing authority” anywhere and everywhere it means something. Tough to deny his Writ’s “primary” normative role, for the church and its preachers teachers/councils.

The solas do not do away with bishops, sacraments, synods, councils. They all have Writ as their “surpassing authority”.

What came to a head with Luther was whether Tradition (Roman) was now equal to Writ, and that infallibly and without further theological questioning. Kind of like saying, " we , the church , are doing it, practicing it, it therefore must be right with previous defining and decreeing. The difference was that 1000 years had passed for the settling and solidifying of tradition, unlike Augustine’s time.

Except in *On The Care To Be Had For The Dead, *Augustine says what you deny, if something is not found in Scripture, the weight of the Church is enough to make doctrine. This is a direct denial of sola scriptura. Very few Protestant historians try to say Augustine was sola scriptura.

The very reason Augustine wrote so much was pretty much the same reason Luther posted his points out for discussion, as was customary. Some things were not settled , some tradition was still not a capital T yet, like Christology. Augustine reasoned with differing points of view, from both without the church and from within. He did not simply say or recite past decrees, councils and tradition or as directed by a pope. He reasoned in some grey areas as if tradition was not yet equal to Writ, or a capital T. The church culture was more flexible in more areas than Luther’s time. Yet some flexibility was still possible for Luther, as noted the customary academic challenge (95 thesis). Unfortunately, and some might say providentially, inflexibility over something as “minor” as indulgence practice, snowballed and eventually led to a schism as big as the previous one.

Blessings

How little you know Catholicism. Indulgence practice is not “minor” at all. If the Church has made a doctrine out of something, then she does not consider that something minor. Obviously in your desire for “flexibility,” you are willing to sacrifice truth.

If sola fide is the doctrine where the Reformation stands or falls, then in truth nothing the Church could have done would have stopped the Reformation. To agree with sola fide would have been a denial of what the Church taught from the beginning. The Protestant historian Alistair McGrath, himself a believer in sola fide, admits it cannot be found in the early Church. He says the sense with which some in the early Church used it, is not the sense that the Reformers used it. Luther himself admits that sola fide cannot be found in the writings of the ECF’s.