Name one issue the ECF's were unanimous on!

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Edwin,
He was excluding all works, including good works.
Edwin, baptism is a work! wouldn’t you agree?
Not at all (in the sense Clement intended). Baptism is a gift of God and a means of grace.

Again, you could try reading some Luther!

You might as well say that he was excluding faith–faith is just as much a work as baptism, arguably more so.

I repeat: you have no reason to think he was excluding baptism except that your theology demands this.

Edwin
 
FROM BISHOP CLEMENT OF ROME…

"And we who through his will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory world without end. Amen.
Chapter 30.

Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. “For God,” [says the Scripture], “resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. For [the Scripture] says, “He that speaks much, shall also hear much in answer. And does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteous? Blessed is he that is born of woman, who lives but a short time: be not given to much speaking.” Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for God hates those that commend themselves. Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers. Boldness, and arrogance, and audacity belong to those that are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness to such as are blessed by Him.

As you can see, Clement isn’t so opposed to justification by works as you thought.😃

The problem is that you do not understand the Catholic view of justification. No Catholic believes that works we do out of our own goodness or “holiness of heart” justify us. We believe that works accomplished by the grace of God justify us. So, therefore Clement agrees with us, not you, about justification (unless you ignore Ch.30 and the true Catholic view of justification by works - then he agrees with you.😛 )

EDIT - Also note that in Ch. 32 Clement says “but by faith” not “but by faith alone.” Otherwise, he’d be contradicting what he said in Ch. 30.
Whats underlined in red should also be pertainable to the necessity of baptism, and all the other sacramental "necessities"
“first Clement” earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html
That makes absolutely no sense. I agree with Edwin that you do not understand the Catholic view of Baptism and I add that you do not understand what Clement is talking about.
Edwin,
He was excluding all works, including good works.
Edwin, baptism is a work! wouldn’t you agree?
He goes on to encourage them to do the works he excluded, so there can be no seperation of type of work whether bad or good.
No he wasn’t. Read Chapter 30 above. You’ll see Edwin is right.

And Catholics do not believe Baptism is a work. We believe it is a Sacrament.
 
Edwin,
He was excluding all works, including good works.
Edwin, baptism is a work! wouldn’t you agree?
He goes on to encourage them to do the works he excluded, so there can be no seperation of type of work whether bad or good.
No he wasn’t. Read Chapter 30 and my above post. You’ll see Edwin is right.

And Catholics do not believe Baptism is a work. We believe it is a Sacrament.
 
Simon, this is what Catholics mean by consensus among the ECF’s:
The Early Church Fathers on
Justification
The Early Church Fathers believed we are justified by faith and works. The works in question are not accomplished by the goodness of the individual, but by the grace of God.
Clement of Rome
Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self- controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words. . . . Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith? . . . So we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, were not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men. (Letter to the Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4 [A.D. 110]).
Theophilus of Antioch
Give studious attention to the prophetic writings, and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. He who gave the mouth for speech and formed the ears for hearing and made eyes for seeing will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things, which neither has eye seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man. For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries and fornications and homosexuality and avarice and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, and in the end such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (To Autolycas 1:14 [ca. A.D. 181]).
Clement of Alexandria
When we hear, ‘Your faith has saved you,’ we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed. To begin with, it was to the Jews alone that he spoke this phrase, who had lived in accord with the law and blamelessly and who had lacked only faith in the Lord (Stromateis or Miscellanies 6:14:108:4 [post A.D. 202]).
Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James (Commentaries on John 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]).
You, then, who are rich and wealthy, buy for yourself from Christ gold purified in fire, for with your filth, as if burned away in the fire; you can be like pure gold, if you are cleansed by almsgiving and by works of justice. Buy yourself a white garment so that, although you had been naked like Adam and were formerly frightful and deformed, you may be clothed in the white garment of Christ. You who are a matron rich and wealthy, anoint not your eyes with the antimony of the devil, but with the salve of Christ, so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living (Works and Almsgiving 14 [A.D. 252]).
Aphracrtes
Great is the gift which he that is good has given to us. While not forcing us, and in spite of our sins he wants us to be justified. While he is in no way aided by our good works, he heals us that we may be pleasing in his sight. When we do not wish to ask of him, he is angry with us. He calls out to all of us constantly; “Ask and receive, and when you seek, you shall find” (Treatises 23:48 [A.D. 336-345]).
Gregory of Nyssa
Paul, joining righteousness to faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides. A soldier cannot be considered safely armored when either shield is disjoined from the other. Faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith (Homilies on Ecclesiastes 8 [ca. A.D. 335- 394]).
continued…
 
John Chrysostom
He that believes in the Son has everlasting life." Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,’ someone will say, ‘in order to have everlasting life?’ By no means! Listen to Christ declare this himself when he says, ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord! Lord!” shall enter into the kingdom of heaven’; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation (Homilies on the Gospel of John 31:1[circa A.D. 391]).
But since in the Law no one is justified before God, it is evident that the just man lives by faith.’ It should be noted that he does not say that a man, a person, lives by faith, lest it be thought that he is condemning good works. Rather, he says the ‘just’ man lives by faith. He implies thereby that
whoever would be faithful and would conduct his life according to the faith can in no other way arrive at the faith or live in it except first he be a just man of pure life, coming up to the faith by certain degrees (Commentaries on Galatians 2:3:11 [A.D. 386]).
Augustine
“He was handed over for our offenses, and he rose again for our justification.” What does this mean, “for our justification?” So that he might justify us, so that he might make us just. You will be a work of God, not only because you are a man, but also because you are just. For it is better that you be just than that you are a man. If God made you a man, and you made your-self just, something you were doing would be better than what God did. But God made you without any cooperation on your part. You did not lend your consent so that God could make you. How could you have consented, when you did not exist? But he who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but he does not justify you without your willing it (Sermons 169:13 [inter A.D. 391-430]).
But we know that God does not hear sinners: but if any man is a worshiper of God and does his will, that man God will hear. He still speaks as one only anointed. For God does listen to sinners too. If God did not listen to sinners, it would have been all in vain for the publican to cast down his eyes to the ground and strike his breast saying: “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.” And that confession merited justification, just as the blind man merited enlightenment (Homilies on the Gospel of John 44:13 [A.D. 416]).
Source: staycatholic.com/ecf_justification.htm
 
–The presence of Christ in the Eucharist

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iv.xiv.html

From the bottom of this page…Origen comments about Christians consuming bread in communion, explains that the bread itself doesn’t profit those who consume it, and contrasts that bread with the person of Christ.

"Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.
Origen did not deny the Real Presence in this above text. I don’t understand where you see that. Anyway, Origen absolutely believed in the Real Presence. Take a look at this:

Origen Homilies on Exodus 13,3:

I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know, when you received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercised every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. But if you observe such caution in keeping His Body, and properly so, how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?

Source: columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist-q.html
 
Did any of the Church Father believe in imputed righteousness as the Reformers (and modern Protestants) did?

Did all early Church Fathers believe that obedience (including good works) was ordinarily necessary for salvation?

(Sorry if that was already asked or dealt with)
 
Not at all (in the sense Clement intended). Baptism is a gift of God and a means of grace.

Again, you could try reading some Luther!

You might as well say that he was excluding faith–faith is just as much a work as baptism, arguably more so.

I repeat: you have no reason to think he was excluding baptism except that your theology demands this.

Edwin
I’ve read some of Luther, more on Luther than from him.

Not sure how you can say faith is as much a work as baptism baptism takes an action on our part, faith according to scripture is…
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1).
Where is the work in this?
Doesn’t Romans 12:3 say that faith is a divine gift?
No work or it would be not a gift.
 
Origen did not deny the Real Presence in this above text. I don’t understand where you see that. Anyway, Origen absolutely believed in the Real Presence. Take a look at this:

Origen Homilies on Exodus 13,3:

I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know, when you received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercised every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. But if you observe such caution in keeping His Body, and properly so, how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?

Source: columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist-q.html
He refers to Christians consuming bread in communion, explains that the bread itself doesn’t profit those who consume it, and contrasts that bread with the person of Christ
 
He refers to Christians consuming bread in communion, explains that the bread itself doesn’t profit those who consume it, and contrasts that bread with the person of Christ
Out of Context:
"Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.
 
He refers to Christians consuming bread in communion, explains that the bread itself doesn’t profit those who consume it, and contrasts that bread with the person of Christ
Well, if they are consuming bread then of course bread doesn’t profit those who consume it (although, as an Italian, I must say that in another sense it is very profitable and delicious.:D)

Seriously, you are either reading something in that text that isn’t there or misunderstanding what Origen wrote. Besides (I know you ignored it) but the other text I showed you clearly shows Origen believed in the Real Presence.

You might get away with taking Bible verses out of context and spinning them to fit your views, but that’s harder to do with the Fathers, as I have shown you with Clement and Origen. If you interpret one text in a way that clearly contradicts another, then it is obvious your interpretation of the text does not reflect what the certain ECF believed.
 
I’ve read some of Luther, more on Luther than from him.

Not sure how you can say faith is as much a work as baptism baptism takes an action on our part, faith according to scripture is…
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1).
Where is the work in this?
Doesn’t Romans 12:3 say that faith is a divine gift?
No work or it would be not a gift.
Accepting God’s gift of faith can be considered to be a work, if I understand what Edwin was saying. The faith is God’s gift, but the acceptance of the faith is an act on our part (unless you deny that we have free will?. In other words, God offers and we choose whether or not to accept his offer.
 
Consensus=I get, you know 3 out of 5, 4 out of 7
“UNANIMOUS CONSENT”=whole different story 7 for 7 is unanimous.
It has been explained to you what is meant by us when we say “unanimous consent.” Unfortunately, you seem to ignore everything. You are not here for dialogue or to understand what the other side is saying. This is the approach you are taking:

You: This is what you mean by “unanimous consent”: XYZ

Us: No, that is not what we mean. This is what we mean: ABC

You: NO, that is not what you mean. THIS is what you mean: XYZ

Us. But we just told you we don’t mean that.

You: Yes you do.

Us: No we don’t. Let us explain -

You: NO! NOT LISTENING!!!

You have asked us a question about our faith, and we have responded. But, you continue to ignore, because you aren’t interested in hearing anything we have to say.

Besides, you have yet to show ONE ECF that takes the sola fide view of justification or disagrees with us on a major issue. You have made an assertion and failed to back it up.
 
Here is a short explanation of what is meant by unanimous consent: socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/unanimous-consent-of-church-fathers.html (Hint: it doesn’t mean every single one agreeing.)

And to paraphrase John Calvin, no one will keep arguing that unanimous must mean every single one unless out of a fondness for disputation.
Very good explanation:thumbsup:

I especially found this pertinent to the current topic:
The word “unanimous” comes from two Latin words: unus, one + animus, mind. “Consent”, as was used when coined means “to be of the same mind or opinion.” Where the Fathers speak overall with one mind, not necessarily each and every one, nor numerically complete, but by consensus and general agreement, we have “unanimous consent.”
 
Origen did not deny the Real Presence in this above text. I don’t understand where you see that. Anyway, Origen absolutely believed in the Real Presence. Take a look at this:

Origen Homilies on Exodus 13,3:

I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know, when you received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercised every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. But if you observe such caution in keeping His Body, and properly so, how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?

Source: columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist-q.html
I can’t find this in context, have ya any links to the writings and not someone quoting it. It’s nowhere at ccel.org
 
. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. For [the Scripture] says,.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html
“Let us clothe ourselves with concord, being humble, temperate, keeping ourselves far from all whispering and evil speaking, justified by our deeds, and not by our words. For he saith, He who saith many things shall, in return, hear many things. Doth he that is eloquent think himself to be just? – doth he that is born of woman and liveth but for a short time think himself to be blessed? Be not abundant in speech. Let our praise be in God, and not for ourselves, for God hateth the self-praisers. Let the testimony of right actions be given us from others, even as it was given to our fathers who were just. Audacity, self-will, and boldness belong to them who are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness, to them that are blessed of God.” (30)

Clement is addressing justification in the sense of (shown to be right), such as we see in Luke 7:35, not an eternal life sense.
You can’t get that from this…

“Let the testimony of right actions be given us from others”,

which is a reference to vindication, not a reference to the attaining of eternal life.
Just because you single out the phrase “justified by our deeds”, but the context doesn’t support the meaning they pour into that phrase.
 
I can’t find this in context, have ya any links to the writings and not someone quoting it. It’s nowhere at ccel.org
I only know of a book. Unfortunately there is no website that has the translation, but you can get an online version of the book from here if you sign up for the free trial (or if you already have a Questia account.)

But with all due respect, Origen’s pretty clear. He refers to the Eucharist as “His Body” and he affirms the view that it is sinful to neglect particles of the Eucharist (the Lord’s Body.)
earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html
“Let us clothe ourselves with concord, being humble, temperate, keeping ourselves far from all whispering and evil speaking, justified by our deeds, and not by our words. For he saith, He who saith many things shall, in return, hear many things. Doth he that is eloquent think himself to be just? – doth he that is born of woman and liveth but for a short time think himself to be blessed? Be not abundant in speech. Let our praise be in God, and not for ourselves, for God hateth the self-praisers. Let the testimony of right actions be given us from others, even as it was given to our fathers who were just. Audacity, self-will, and boldness belong to them who are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness, to them that are blessed of God.” (30)

Clement is addressing justification in the sense of (shown to be right), such as we see in Luke 7:35, not an eternal life sense.
You can’t get that from this…

“Let the testimony of right actions be given us from others”,

which is a reference to vindication, not a reference to the attaining of eternal life.
Just because you single out the phrase “justified by our deeds”, but the context doesn’t support the meaning they pour into that phrase.
I do not have time to answer right now but there is a commentary I know of that addresses this very thing in detail:
Clement of Rome (AD 96)
The earliest Christian document outside the New Testament writings comes to us from Clement of Rome: The Letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth (commonly known as* Clement’s First Letter*). It was so highly esteemed in Christian antiquity that for a while it was even accepted as part of the canon of Scripture in Egypt and Syria. Many scholars believe Clement is identified as the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. Regardless, Clement was the bishop of Rome at the close of the first century. He was familiar with St. Paul’s Epistles, and he certainly believed and taught that we are justified by faith: And we, therefore…are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight or religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning (ch. 32:4).
One might determine that Clement held a Reformed view of justification; however, Clement had more to say on the subject. In fact, it would lead future critics to say that Clement moved away from Pauline teaching toward ethical interests. Actually, Paul and Clement were saying the exact same thing. They both spoke of salvation in terms of requiring a comprehensive response on the part of the Christian: believing that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and living a life of holiness. Hence Clement would not only write of being justified by faith, but he would also say: *We should clothe ourselves with concord, being humble, self-controlled, far removed from all gossiping and slandering, and justified by our deeds, not by words (ch. 30:3).
*Is the reader led to conclude that there exists an inherent self-contradiction in Clement’s letter? Or was Clement promulgating the essential truth of the Gospel notwithstanding Paul’s teaching on the necessity of faith for salvation? Clement did not understand Paul to be offering an either/or proposition, but rather both/and. According to Paul sin and grace are entirely opposed. “For what participation has justice with injustice? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).
continued…
 
It was an entirely new way of life that was required of the Christian to inherit God’s promises: faith and an inner conversion of the heart that would naturally show itself in good works of holiness. Clement believed that both Christ’s and Paul’s teaching held that if the latter is missing, the former is barren (cf. Mt. 7:21; Lk. 13:24; 1 Cor. 13:2; 15:1,2; James 2:14ff).
Clement taught that the Christian moral life is imperative for salvation, that faith and obedience is what God considers righteousness. Clement points out that our actions—our good deeds prompted by faith—is what God reckons as righteousness: “Why was our father Abraham blessed?
Was it not because he acted in righteousness and truth, prompted by faith?” (ch.31:2-3). Clement further instructed the Church of Corinth that Abraham inherited God’s promises becauseof his (1) faith, (2) obedience and (3) hospitality: It was obedience which led [Abraham] to quit his country, his kindred, and his father’s house, so that, by leaving a paltry country, a mean kindred, and an insignificant house, he might inherit God’s promises (ch. 10:2).
Because of [Abraham’s] faith and hospitality a son was granted to him in his old age (ch. 10:7).

Paul tells us that justification requires faith. Clement affirms that. But what does faith require? Paul says that faith requires (1) believing (cf. 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Cor. 5:7), (2) obedience (cf. Rom. 1:5; 6:16), and (3) love [hospitality] (cf. Gal. 5:6), exactly what Clement said in Chapter 10 quoted above.
Paul and Clement accentuated the necessity of faith, that our salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, and nothing we can do of our own accord (including holy deeds of the heart) apart from that faith will gain us our salvation. But they both taught that faith requires conversion that proves itself in Christian moral living, works of grace—fruits of the Holy Spirit working in us. St. Augustine would later remark that Without love faith can indeed exist, but can be of no avail (De Trin. XV 18, 32).
Clement refers to several scriptural passages (Isa. 40:10; 62:11; Prov. 24:12; Rev. 22:12) to augment his plea to the Corinthians to persevere in doing good, which will eventually pay a reward: We must, then, be eager to do good; for everything comes from Him. For he warns us: `See, the Lord is coming. He is bringing his reward with him, to pay each one according to his work’ (ch. 34:2,3).
What is this reward we are to receive, this pay according to our work? Eternal salvation. For what are we being paid—our works? Partially, yes, but correctly understood! It is “our” work only insofar as it is our cooperation with God’s grace as opposed to “the works of the Law.” Hence it is God’s work in us manifesting itself in the fruits of the Holy Spirit that lead us to salvation, beginning with faith, supported by faith, and persevering in faith. (Matt 10:22; Trent, sess. 6, ch. 8;).
Protestant traditions have generally objected to that on the principle that it would result in God paying us the reward of salvation for something we do. It would therefore cease to be gratuitous.
However, Paul condemns those who make salvation a wage or salary as if we can buy our salvation through our own works or deeds apart from faith and God’s grace. Paul doesn’t condemn receiving a payment/reward as a filial inheritance from God for those who have faith working in love (cf. Gal. 5:6), for those who do God’s commands. This type of labor can only boast in God. Thus St. Augustine’s famous adage: “When God rewards my labors, He only crowns His own works in me.”
chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_12.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top