Long before Luther? Sola Fide in the past?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cloak_and_stagg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cloak_and_stagg

Guest
A member of John Macarthur’s church Nate Busenitz is coming out with a book next week asserting that literally ALL the church fathers believed in Sola Fide, and I was always under the belief that Sola Fide, true or not was more or less a 16th century invention, at anyrate perhaps some of the Catholics here can show me how an evangelical might be taking quotes out of context from Jerome and friends to support his own view.

Also maybe the good folks at Catholic Answers can do a review of his book as an example how NOT to read Church Doctors? Even I feel there are problems in his book, as he claims Justin Martyr taught Sola Fide when I read Lutheran Ministers who did a comparison of him with Luther admit Justin taught no such thing.

Here is a link to the book I am referencing to

 
These sort of things should be ignored unless they gain traction. Giving these sorts of things answers would give them too much credit and potentially give the attention they would not otherwise receive.
 
Not to mention that the book more likely than not cherry picks and misrepresents quotes from the Church fathers. This claim is nothing new and not really one worth refuting here since other apologists have tackled this issue before.

ChadS
 
I understand what you mean, its just people might be hoodwinked into believing but without an easy way to see that the various church fathers have been taken out of context
 
cloak_and_stagg said:
I understand what you mean, its just people might be hoodwinked into believing but without an easy way to see that the various church fathers have been taken out of context
Click to expand...
It is sad, but there are literally hundreds of inaccurate books published each year, each more egregious than the next. One only has to take a trip to Barnes and Noble (while they still exist) to see the ever popular “The Catholic church proves themselves is wrong and this is why” section…AKA Christian apologetics.

Giving them attention is a bad idea. If one garners “viral” attention, then it is wise to address it.
 
Last edited:
well I guess because this guy was never challenged I asked this question, still I guess I can take a look at the book myself to write something about it.
 
They might find a friend in Wycliffe and Tyndal but not entirely either. He’s doing his research wrong if that is the conclusion he came to.

Seriously, seriously, wrong.
 
quite honestly if a very strong, hard core Calvinist admits that Augustine believed that salvation was not by faith alone, then I think this guy is seriously terrible researcher.
 
(To help the cause 😛 )
“On Free Will and Grace” by St Augustine.

Chapter 20.—The Question Answered. Justification is Grace Simply and Entirely, Eternal Life is Reward and Grace.This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, because of what is said by the Lord Jesus: “Without me ye can do nothing.”3059 And the apostle himself, after saying, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;” St. Paul saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them; and again, the possibility of men’s boasting of their good works, as if they were of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these opinions on both sides, he immediately added, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” What is the purport of his saying, “Not of works, lest any man should boast,” while commending the grace of God? And then why does he afterwards, when giving a reason for using such words, say, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works”? Why, therefore, does it run, “Not of works, lest any man should boast”? Now, hear and understand. “Not of works” is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded (that is, has formed and created) you. For of these he says, “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” Now he does not here speak of that creation which made us human beings, but of that in reference to which one said who was already in full manhood, “Create in me a clean heart, O God; ”concerning which also the apostle says, “Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God.” We are framed, therefore, that is, formed and created, “in the good works which” we have not ourselves prepared, but “God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given. But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its reward;—grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God “shall reward every man according to his works.”

It is generally agreed amongst scholars that the word “faith” in the original language of the saint was akin to “fidelity, faithfulness, devotion.” Here he writes that first we receive grace, and that inspires us towards faith and then we do good works, all of which are necessary.
 
yes, but historical revisionism is just blatantly absurd one thing to say Catholics are wrong, but to re-write history that is just worthy of ten thousand head deskes
 
cloak_and_stagg said:
yes, but historical revisionism is just blatantly absurd one thing to say Catholics are wrong, but to re-write history that is just worthy of ten thousand head deskes
Click to expand...
I have not said it is wrong. I very much agree that it’s absurd.

What I’m telling you is–this is NOT new. This is not novel. There is literally nothing special about this. There is nothing that this book proclaims to teach that isn’t already on the shelves of bookstores, libraries, and even Non-Catholic schools today.

I get the impression that you feel you have stumbled upon some kind of new discovery, some novel thought, some bright revelation of the past, twisted into lies.

Again, I’d ask that you take a look at the apologetics section or scripture section of any library or bookstore. You’ll find a dozen books that have BTDT.

You feel this is worthy of a fight because it’s new to you. I get that. It is shocking.

But the best thing we can do for these sorts of books is to let them die a painful death of obscurity, hastened by the booksellers who want revenue and the librarian who wants high circulation numbers.

If you are given the gift of good rhetorical writing, you’d be better off creating your own, independent volume that doesn’t simply address the errors in this book, but in many of the books that twist scripture.
 
If by sola fide he means organized by an episcopate, sacramental, real presence believing, penitential, infused grace view of justification Church, among other things…
 
The difficulty with these things is that people who are in the MacArthur style are very unlikely to be open minded enough to look behind the curtain in things like this.
Having said that, my own exodus from this school of Calvinism was reading the early church fathers for myself. It became inescapably apparent that they did not teach Reformed doctrines. Now, I get told by people still in the movement that I think this way because I didn’t understand them properly, which of course is kind of amusing given that it makes the Calvinists a kind of magisterium on the fathers.
Anyway, my point is that arguing is unlikely to break through, but that actually, this book itself might be self-refuting if it encourages people to go back and read the sources.
 
Last edited:
There is a bizzare point Nate brought up about John Chrystom that I wish to ask
He claimed that this statement from John’s Second Epistle of St. Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians

“Attend to this, you who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism you may have also this deportment, but you are seeking and doing your utmost to depart without it. For, what though you be justified: yet is it of faith only. But we pray that thou should have as well the confidence that comes of good works”

That Chrysosthom is teaching faith alone saves, even apart from as water baptism. Is anyone here familiar with Chrysosthom’s work and is what Nate asserting anywhere close to what Chrysosthom is teaching?
 
Last edited:
For example, Augustine’s high view of faith = faith alone? No

Same “new”, old trick
 
It’s all so terribly simple, as belief itself is very simple - as Pope Benedict kept saying.

Now, as to SOLA FIDE or the whole sola scriptura | sola fide | sola gratia | solus Christus is refuted, by the simple common reason everyone knows:
For how on earth should even any togetherness between humans work with any of these “solas”.
If we “sola” read how things are - but act and do not accordingly; it was all in vain.
If we “sola” believe that what we learned is right, but don’t act as learned; it was all in vain.
If we “sola” relay on the grace of others, but don’t act in return; all grace and affection of others will extinguish.
If we “solus” believe in Christ but don’t act according to His doctrine, then our belief is in vain.

That’s a fundamental knowledge and experience. Even children practiced it. Everyone learns it in his life empirically. For whenever anyone reads books, believes what he read, also feels affections pus believes in the person - but doesn’t act accordingly, all this will vanish like a wisp of fog in the sun.

St. James emphasized this in Jas 2,14 - 26
Hence a hundred books and more might prove that sola scriptura | sola fide | sola gratia | solus Christus is enough and works according are redundant, all these false teachers are plainly and even very dangerously wrong.

He who doesn’t understand and won’t hear this, simply might let it, for he will see anyhow one day.

Yours
Bruno 🙂
 
Competing Bible versions was the natural progression for the non-Catholic world, after competing and conflicting interpretation of doctrine. What follows afterwards is a revision and a reinterpretation of the Church fathers beliefs and the history of the Christian faith.

Church history is the weakest foundation of the protestant faith. Even today , the 500th anniversary of the Reformation it should be a crowning moment that symbolizes liberation from the bounds and authority of the Catholic Church, yet there’s barely any fanfare and celebration.

There will be many more conversions to he Catholic faith, if history is what is at the forefront of objective study. It’s better to allow our Protestant friends to defend their faith and beliefs for a change, since it’s far easier to ask the questions than to answer them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top