justification by faith alone in Early Fathers

[Odell]

First Eric, James was attacking the false notions the Jews had about Abraham the complete opposite of what Paul was arguing to his audience that the system of law/works could not save. While James is arguing they can. Paul was arguing that faith apart from works of the law; which only includes works of the law. It does not exclude faith apart from obedience and love. The faith Paul is referring to is very much a deep profound obedient faith.

how do you know the fathers believed what you did?

I’m really having a hard time figuring you out. Are you Arminian or Calvinist? I can’t find anyones theology you agree with 100%. You agree with the Church on some thing and on some things you do not.

In regard to how do we know this is what they said? Do you not think the Church would write extensively on their interpretations of scripture? She is the Mystical Body of Christ so naturally she would hand down her teaching and there would be some record of her teachings; agreed?

Clement said we are justified by faith. When he mentions being justified by our words, he is saying nothing different than what Jesus said in the gospels concerning every idle word and also the idea that by our words we will be justified and by our words we will be condemned.

Eric, … I find it interesting that, with a selection of well over 700 Church Fathers to choose from, you can only cite obscure, limited examples (such as Clement), which gives you the required “wiggle room”. Why exactly is that? Come now, Eric … Show some bravery. What about the people who wrote comprehensively on the Faith? What about Irenaeus, or Justin Martyr, or Origen, or Tertullian, or Athanasius, or the Cappadocians, or Augustine, or Ambrose, or any of a hundred others? Were any of them “Bible Christians”??? Did any of them agree 100% with your interpretation of the Faith presented in the Bible? This is what I wish to know from you.*

If the Bible is a source of objective truth, and if all we need to do is read it, why did these other so-called “believers in Sola Scriptura” not arrive at the Evangelical faith which you adhere to today???

Again you default *to discussing the scriptures, but you do not use the writings of the fathers to develop your point

He has no objective standard for interpreting the Bible all he has is his own interpretation making himself his own authority.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Faith and Works in Abraham’s life are meant the same in both Paul and James.

If “faith” basically meant keeping God’s commandments (moral, love, kindness, justice, mercy) then the description of human sinfunless in Romans 3:10-18 falls out of place in the whole epistle. Paul has been arguing of the necessity of grace & faith ON THE BASIS of human sinfulness in ALL areas of life. In other words, when Paul says “Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20).

How does amoral ceremonial ritualistic ethnically isolated works reveal sin? Would not this be the same as what Paul says in Romans 7, I would not have known coveteousness had the law not said “you shall not covet”??? The knowledge of sin, no? Therefore Romans 7:11-13 lines up with Romans 3:19-20 which furnishes the complete moral component into “works of the law”.

And remember, the blood atonement of Romans 3:21-26 has to find some place in the argument. If all that Paul is saying is that in the law you had to be justified by these ritualistic Jewish-centered ceremonial laws and now we are justified by keeping to the basics of love, mercy, justice, and hope…why a blood sacrifice?

We are missing the supreme element in between the argument of Romans 3 and Romans 5. Christ Jesus was delivered up to the cross to die on account of our transgressions and was raised on account of our justification. We are justified through the death of Jesus (rom 5:9).

Total sinfulness of mankind, the complete finished work of Jesus Christ by the operation of God alone, and the embrace of that life, death, and resurrection in order to put us into a right relationship with God through baptism (rom 6)

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

And God has given each an honor of understanding. It is not an issue about “one’s own authority”. For goodness sakes, just read the biblical writings of theologians from the 2nd century onward…were all of them n agreement? Were all of the theologians of catholic tradition 100% copy paste? No.

If God said, “I want every human being to lie down flat now”, would we be quibbling as to which human being has the authority to interpret what that means?

Sometimes it is so plain that the meaning is hurtful to you, and so you point to an acclaimed infallible authority so as to reveal the private authority of the one who is taking in the plain sense, thus undermining it.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

God cannot violate free will?

Are their restrictions on the almighty?

Does the thing made have authority to the maker to ask ‘Why have you made me this way’?

If God chose people before the world began, whose in control?

You seem to be rather steeped in your Calvinism.

The bottom line is that no he cannot violate free will, because He created us with Free Will, its part of our nature. For God to subvert Free Will would mean that He acted contrary to His own design. Or it would mean that he designed us in way He didn’t intend, IOW you seem to insist by your theology a contradiction on God’s part. We’re not robots, we are free creatures.

As I explained to Hunter in another thread, omnipotence means that there is no real barrier between God’s knowing or acting. It is impossible to think of something as thwarting God’s will, unless God Himself allows the thwarting-as in human free choice to sin. But that circumstance requires omnipotence, and is therefore not an argument against it.

It is this misunderstanding that led Calvin to his false conclusions about double-predestination.

 

[Odell]

And remember, the blood atonement of Romans 3:21-26 has to find some place in the argument. If all that Paul is saying is that in the law you had to be justified by these ritualistic Jewish-centered ceremonial laws and now we are justified by keeping to the basics of love, mercy, justice, and hope…why a blood sacrifice?

The blood sacrifice appeases Gods wrath. *Remember we have been saying all along that Grace is given without any merit? Paul’s point is we can not work as to obligate God. God can however reward our actions by his pure benevolence. Love, mercy justice and hope show our inner being that God gracefully rewards us for.

And God has given each an honor of understanding. It is not an issue about “one’s own authority”.

Who do you summit to? What is your objective standard for understanding the scriptures?

For goodness sakes, just read the biblical writings of theologians from the 2nd century onward…were all of them n agreement? Were all of the theologians of catholic tradition 100% copy paste? No.

Well darn if we can’t trust what they have to say about scripture how am into trust what you are saying about scripture? I’d rather trust those whom learn from the apostles than you Eric, no offense.

There’s a difference between you and I. I, as a Catholic believe in the development of doctrine – that, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church can and does come to deeper appreciations of facets in the Deposit of Faith left to us by the Apostles. Jesus promised as much in John 16:13. You, however, believe that the Faith is static – frozen solidly in the pages of a recorded document. …And that this recorded document is all we have. Well, if that’s the case, then it necessarily follows that you MUST be able to show that your interpretation of this document is consistent and repeatable for anyone (in whatever age) who reads the Biblical record. Yet, you admit that you cannot show this. Thus, you have no objective standard for your interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. Thus, how can you say that your interpretation is any better than mine?? You can’t. Not with objective certainty. Thus, you follow a religion based on personal opinion – the very thing condemned in 2 Peter 1:20-21 & 2:1-3. You do not share “one Faith” (Ephesians 4:1-6) with the Christians who came before you. You do not share unity with them. …And nor do you care. You are most certainly a relativist.

If God said, “I want every human being to lie down flat now”, would we be quibbling as to which human being has the authority to interpret what that means?

Sometimes it is so plain that the meaning is hurtful to you, and so you point to an acclaimed infallible authority so as to reveal the private authority of the one who is taking in the plain sense, thus undermining it.

Are you seriously telling me that you cannot present ONE PERSON who achieved the same result from reading the Bible as you do?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

You said that grace can be given without any merit, but that does not mean we do not have do work for it?

This sounds like Mr. Sungenis who argues that in the “law” there is a strict adherence required such that the payment you receive is equal to the work you put in. And that meritorious grace consists of doing something, but not as a meriting system, in order to obtain the favor of God.

1 Corinthians 1-2 teaches us that “natural man” without the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit, cannot and will never believe in the gospel. Therefore the Spirit of God has to come out of grace to open the eyes of the blind in order for them to believe God. God does this for those who are appointed for salvation (Acts).

He comes to save people through the preaching of the gospel “…not by works of righteousness which they have done” (Titus 3)!!! In other words, God is initially working in the life of a person to bring them to salvation, BEFORE they have done anything in his favor!!

The means of saving is “the bath of regeneration and the renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3). This is God’s work of salvation! He is at work, not the human being. (Although their is the co-operation of the will).

They saved have been prepared to walk in good works. Therefore, the moral transformation of a person who is truly saved (on the right soil) lasts in perserverance until the end.

 

[Odell]

You said that grace can be given without any merit, but that does not mean we do not have do work for it?

This sounds like Mr. Sungenis who argues that in the “law” there is a strict adherence required such that the payment you receive is equal to the work you put in. And that meritorious grace consists of doing something, but not as a meriting system, in order to obtain the favor of God.

1 Corinthians 1-2 teaches us that “natural man” without the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit, cannot and will never believe in the gospel. Therefore the Spirit of God has to come out of grace to open the eyes of the blind in order for them to believe God. God does this for those who are appointed for salvation (Acts).

He comes to save people through the preaching of the gospel “…not by works of righteousness which they have done” (Titus 3)!!! In other words, God is initially working in the life of a person to bring them to salvation, BEFORE they have done anything in his favor!!

The means of saving is “the bath of regeneration and the renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3). This is God’s work of salvation! He is at work, not the human being. (Although their is the co-operation of the will).

They saved have been prepared to walk in good works. Therefore, the moral transformation of a person who is truly saved (on the right soil) lasts in perserverance until the end.

Have you not read my post? This is why I have mentioned Trent and Canon 18 of the council of Orange II says this “That grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed; but grace, which is not due, precede that they may be done.”

Do you understand? Grace is given without any merit! Catholics will go as far in saying that grace precedes faith! Read the Trent references again.

So as you believe God can reward our faith and that it merits salvation, but not so apart from Gods grace as the primary mover. Same goes for faith my friend I’m using the same argument for works that you are presenting to me as faith.

 

[Odell]

Basically why can God accept our faith as righteousness but not our works? He can my friend just as He can view your faith that is imperfect; He can view our works that are imperfect as righteousness. All because of Christ sacrafice. This is in agreement with the Church fathers. You still have yet provided a church father who is in agreement with you?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Ill have more time when I get home to put in more information.

However, this is just not how I read Romans 3-5.

Look at the logical progression:

‘‘There is no on who is righteous; no, not one. There is no one who does what is good’’ (rom 3:10)

Then

‘‘Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified for by the law is the knowledge of sin’’ (3:20)

Then

‘’ but now, we are justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God gave as a sacrifice of propitiation…so as to be just and justifier of the man who believes in jesus’’ (rom 3:25)

‘’…he wwas delivered up as a sacrifice on account of our sins, and was raised on account of our justification’’ (rom 4:25)

‘‘Therefore now having been justified by his blood, were shall be saved from wrath through him’’ (rom 5:9).

‘‘But the free gift, which arose on account of many sins, resulted in justification of life’’
(rom 5:16-17).

‘‘It is God who justifies, who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and is risen, who furthermore is at the right hand of God who lives to make intercession for me’’ (rom 8:34)

It seems as though Paul understood Jesus death and resurrection to be the ground of justification. Something has happened upon our conversion, that we look back upon, and by means of faith.

Why does Paul never mention works in justjfiction? He could have.

If Paul believe in justification by works then ‘‘faith’’ in his writings would have to include works.

 

[Odell]

Ill have more time when I get home to put in more information.

However, this is just not how I read Romans 3-5.

Look at the logical progression:

‘‘There is no on who is righteous; no, not one. There is no one who does what is good’’ (rom 3:10)

Then

‘‘Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified for by the law is the knowledge of sin’’ (3:20)

Then

‘’ but now, we are justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God gave as a sacrifice of propitiation…so as to be just and justifier of the man who believes in jesus’’ (rom 3:25)

‘’…he wwas delivered up as a sacrifice on account of our sins, and was raised on account of our justification’’ (rom 4:25)

‘‘Therefore now having been justified by his blood, were shall be saved from wrath through him’’ (rom 5:9).

‘‘But the free gift, which arose on account of many sins, resulted in justification of life’’
*(rom 5:16-17).

‘‘It is God who justifies, who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and is risen, who furthermore is at the right hand of God who lives to make intercession for me’’ (rom 8:34)

It seems as though Paul understood Jesus death and resurrection to be the ground of justification. Something has happened upon our conversion, that we look back upon, and by means of faith.

Why does Paul never mention works in justjfiction? He could have.

If Paul believe in justification by works then ‘‘faith’’ in his writings would have to include works.

Paul never says faith apart from love or obedience does he?

We can go around and around you believe faith has to be qualified and that faith is the grounds of our justification. What makes you think YOUR faith is good enough for salvation?*

Again we can go around and around, but you have yet to answer what your objective standard is for interpreting the scriptures. You have also failed to name a church father who agrees 100% with you?

Come on Eric

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I cannot give resources here at the moment.

Paul says that we are justified apart from any works. Whether it be works of love or mercy.

So you think that when Paul says that we are ‘‘justified by faith apart from the works of the law’’ He is only referring to the ethnic centered ceremonial laws of the Jews? And that there is no inclusion of works of love and justice?

Well St.Paul says that the same law he has been speaking about brings death for when the commandment said ‘‘thou shallnot covet’’ it aroused sin in his heart, thus the inability if the law to justify.

When Paul says that man cannot bejustifked by the works of the law for by the law is the knowledge of sin he is referring to the 10 commandments because later he says ‘‘for I would not have known sin except through the law.’’ And the commandment is coveting.

Therefore when Paul says ‘‘apart from the works of the law’’ there is reference to the 10 commandmemts

 

[carlos19]

So you are not going to discuss the fathers?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

In short, all that the fathers teach is that by keeping the commandments we shall obtain eternal life.

I have 5 years of experience in a reformed baptist church, I have read extensivley in the confessions of faith and the commentaries of many Protestant teachers and they do nit disagree with this. Any one else who teaches that someone can live like the devil in this life and go to heaven is decieved.

I believe that when we are converted and baptized, we are transferred from adamic human life into the 2nd adamic human life (christic spiritual humanity) and as soon as this transfer takes place by the power if the holy spirit and faith, we are justified by the grace of God (Titus 3:7) . This consists in the forgiveness of sin, reconciliation with God, and the hope of being saved from the wrath of God.

This gift remains with the believer, unless they believed in vain" until they die.

But those who are transferred into the christic humanity now exhibit works that are in keeping with repentance, the outflow of the new birth, a salvation thatGod has already wrought in the heart. Therefore on the day of judgment the works of believers are demonstrating that they are true disciples of Jesus. Rather then the works themselves meriting salvation

 

[Odell]

Therefore on the day of judgment the works of believers are demonstrating that they are true disciples of Jesus. Rather then the works themselves meriting salvation

You must, at least, be able to give me SOMEONE from that incredibly active time who was “orthodox,” like you. I mean, were there no “orthodox Christians” at Nicaea? Were there none at Chalcedon? Gee, … I thought the Bible teaches that Christians must publicly proclaim the Gospel. So, why were all the “Bible Christians” so silent, Erick? After all, you’d think that we’d have volume after volume of “orthodox” commentaries from this time …at least enough to match Protestant heroes like Luther and Calvin, so as to counter the errors of those nasty “proto-Catholics.” So, where are they??? How is it possible that they do not exist?

 

[Odell]

Name an “ancient Christian” who you consider orthodox

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Name an “ancient Christian” who you consider orthodox

I understand many Christians to be orthodox. But the most is the 13 apostles.

What Catholics do is point out that the father’s all believed that eternal life was gained by practicing righteousness.

Read the puritans. They say the same thing

 

[Odell]

I understand many Christians to be orthodox. But the most is the 13 apostles.

What Catholics do is point out that the father’s all believed that eternal life was gained by practicing righteousness.*

Read the puritans. They say the same thing

Not at all. We are saying that practicing righteousness shows that one actually is righteous this is all do to the grace of God Erick. Just as God can accept our faith due to grace He can also of our works. If the process is all Gods then he would just make us righteous prior to faith and the matter would be over. Any faith or works that come from that "imputation would merrily be a result of God and not a prerequisite for Gods action.*

I’m pointing to you is that none of the Church fathers taught the works of believers are demonstrating that they are true disciples of Jesus. Rather then the works themselves meriting salvation.

Then you apparently don’t believe that the Church is truly the Body of Christ.*You do not understand the Church as the father did. Since you fail to appreciate the significance of Christ’s Incarnation (and how the Church is an extension of that Incarnation), you do not recognize the truth of this; and you reduce your relationship with God to a strictly spiritual level – that is, to the level of a relationship which any Jew could have had with God before Christ’s Incarnation. Thus, you do not appreciate the gift of Emmanuel (God with us who became flesh, Matthew 1:23; John 1:14)

You’re seriously telling me that you cannot present ONE PERSON who achieved the same result from reading the Bible as you does??? Not one??? Why can you do this with people living today and not with anyone from the ancient Church??? If you can point to Bill Graham and say: “He is my fellow Evangelical. He is my co-religious,” why can’t he do that for one of the Church Fathers, Erick?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

What’s the major difference between demonstrating that one is a disciple of christ through good works and meriting the title?

 

[Odell]

What’s the major difference between demonstrating that one is a disciple of christ through good works and meriting the title?

Protestants understand justification as an extrinsic legal act of God which does not involve any transformation of the individual’s inner nature. Hey reserve the inner change of the individual for the are of sactification. The Churchs concept of justification teaches that by the same act of faith God infuses man with sanctifying grace which justifies the individual before God by transforming his inner nature. This takes time and is a process. The individual increases in sanctifying grace and thus his justification increases and progresses throughout this life.

I still wish you to name one early father who agrees with you. You must be able to name me one.

 

[Pax]

Erick in Christ,

I’ll ask again, what would have become of the promise to Abraham and Abraham’s faith had he not had relations with Sarah?

God bless.