Protestants reforming ?

[GKC]

I did not imply that there was. Which is why I said that Anglicans have a broad view on sanctification. Classical Anglicanism is minimalistic about all of this. The 39 Articles are fairly clear on several points: that salvation comes through Christ alone, that justification is by faith alone, that works above and beyond our duty to God do not add to our salvation. These points are further elucidated by the Catechism, which moves from law to grace, assuring the cathecumen that he or she cannot fulfill God’s call to live a holy life by will power. In all of this, Anglicanism is consistently Protestant.

And yet, there is little official mention of sanctification. The articles make positive statements about the sacraments as means of grace, that they are “not only badges and tokens” but “effectual signs of grace” through which God “works invisibly within us” (Article XXV). This certainly implies an ongoing need for sanctification, but it doesn’t spell out why or how such a thing should take place, nor does it relate the topic back to justification. The liturgies of the Prayer Book reveal a similar emphasis, highlighting justification, acknowledging sanctification, but without making explicit how exactly we are to think about the whole thing.

The result of this lack of specification has been that Anglicans have often looked elsewhere for their soteriology. John Henry Newman attempted to harmonize justification by faith with the Council of Trent, which remains the approach of some Anglo-Catholics today, though Newman himself eventually found such an approach lacking. John Wesley, of course, took a unique approach which remains alive in Methodism. A large number of modern Anglicans, particularly in Africa, subscribe to a Pentecostal view. The Lutheran view is espoused by contemporary Anglican Evangelicals like Paul Zahl and Alister McGrath. FitzSimons Allison tends more towards the Reformed approach. Even the Eastern Orthodox view of salvation as theosis has had its Anglican proponents through the ages, most notably Charles Chapman Grafton and Michael Ramsey.

Since Anglicanism has never pronounced definitively on this topic, all of these approaches are acceptable. This doesn’t mean that they’re all correct, but merely that one cannot be deemed outside the bounds of the tradition so long as one holds a plausible rendering of justification by faith and an unswerving conviction in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as savior. The rest remains unsettled, not because Anglicanism is wishy-washy on this topic, but rather because one of the hallmarks of the Anglican approach to theology is a strong reluctance to say anything definitively that wasn’t said definitively by the early Church. The Anglican Reformers were willing to commit to justification by faith because it seemed to them to be plain in the reading of scripture and not in contradiction with the Fathers. But they were not agreed upon anything more, and to insist upon something that is so clearly unsettled is to invite schism and heresy.

In general, I agree.Which is why I repeat that there is no one Anglican position on the matter. There are Anglican positions. As with other undefined matters. To hold them, within a broad range, is still to be Anglican. As long as no one attempts a definitive assertion, de fide, as the Anglican one].

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[JPeter]

In general, I agree.Which is why I repeat that there is no one Anglican position on the matter. There are Anglican positions. As with other undefined matters. To hold them, within a broad range, is still to be Anglican. As long as no one attempts a definitive assertion, de fide, as the Anglican one].

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

On sanctification no! Multiple views are allowed. Our righteousness being infused rather than Imputed is not allowed. It contradicts faith alone as you well know. Some Anglicans hold to Imputed grace and infused grace though. We see this in Hookers sermon, but imputation comes first. A classical Anglican answer to the questions of justification and sanctification is provided by the architect of Elizabethan Settlement, Richard Hooker: ‘Participation is that mutual inward hold which Christ hath of us and we of him. They which thus were in God eternally by their intended admission to life, have, by vocation or adoption, God actually now in them, as the artificer is in the work which his hand doth presently frame. We participate Christ partly by imputation, as when those things which he did and suffered for us are imputed unto us for righteousness; partly by habitual and real infusion, as when grace is inwardly bestowed while we are on earth. Baptism is a sacrament which God hath instituted in his Church, to the end that they which received the same might thereby be incorporated into Christ, and so through his most precious merit obtain as well that grace of imputation which taketh away all former guiltiness, as also that infused divine virtue of the Holy Ghost, which giveth to the powers of the soul their first disposition towards future newness of life’ (Book V, 56, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity).

 

[GKC]

On sanctification no! Multiple views are allowed. Our righteousness being infused rather than Imputed is not allowed. It contradicts faith alone as you well know. Some Anglicans hold to Imputed grace and infused grace though. We see this in Hookers sermon, but imputation comes first. A classical Anglican answer to the questions of justification and sanctification is provided by the architect of Elizabethan Settlement, Richard Hooker: ‘Participation is that mutual inward hold which Christ hath of us and we of him. They which thus were in God eternally by their intended admission to life, have, by vocation or adoption, God actually now in them, as the artificer is in the work which his hand doth presently frame. We participate Christ partly by imputation, as when those things which he did and suffered for us are imputed unto us for righteousness; partly by habitual and real infusion, as when grace is inwardly bestowed while we are on earth. Baptism is a sacrament which God hath instituted in his Church, to the end that they which received the same might thereby be incorporated into Christ, and so through his most precious merit obtain as well that grace of imputation which taketh away all former guiltiness, as also that infused divine virtue of the Holy Ghost, which giveth to the powers of the soul their first disposition towards future newness of life’ (Book V, 56, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity).

And there is no definitive, confessional, binding and normative statement of that exclusionary position. Even to the extent the Act of Subscription sought to bind the ordinands of the CoE to the Articles of Peace. Which bind, by their nature (de jure), no one else.

GKC

 

[JPeter]

And there is no definitive, confessional, binding and normative statement of that exclusionary position. Even to the extent the Act of Subscription sought to bind the ordinands of the CoE to the Articles of Peace. Which bind, by their nature (de jure), no one else.

GKC

I’m not entirely sure about your second and third sentence. I need clarification. On the first part you are correct. As long as it is in line with formularies there is no exact position. Multiple views are allowed as long as they do not contradict what is written. I do not see this as a problem. We believe that the Holy Bible contains all things necessary for salvation. Anglicanism is simple. We worship the same way and “generally” believe the same way.

 

[GKC]

I’m not entirely sure about your second and third sentence. I need clarification. On the first part you are correct. As long as it is in line with formularies there is no exact position. Multiple views are allowed as long as they do not contradict what is written. I do not see this as a problem. We believe that the Holy Bible contains all things necessary for salvation. Anglicanism is simple. We worship the same way and “generally” believe the same way.

In my experience, the “generally” is general, indeed, espcially of late. But no formualry is binding (including the Articles or the Homilies, in the sense a Confession, or the CCC is. The Articles themselves bind no one, save (technically) the ordinands of the CoE. An Erastian Church gets to do that sort of thing. Anglicanism is not, anymore, Erastian, in general.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

When Catholics claim they have 2000 year of history on their side and can only pull stuff from St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century to show their view of infused righteousness, it kind of makes you wonder.

Clement of Rome (c. 30–100): And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.:yeah_me:

You might as well include the full chapter:

CHAPTER 32 – WE ARE JUSTIFIED NOT BY OUR OWN WORKS, BUT BY FAITH.

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

However , we can’t leave these other 2 out:

CHAPTER 33 – BUT LET US NOT OWE UP THE PRACTICE OF GOOD WORKS AND LOVE. GOD HIMSELF IS AN EXAMPLE TO US OF GOOD WORKS.

What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immoveable foundation of His own will. The animals also which are upon it He commanded by His own word into existence. So likewise, when He had formed the sea, and the living creatures which are in it, He enclosed them [within their proper bounds] by His own power. Above all, with His holy and undefiled hands He formed man, the most excellent [of His creatures], and truly great through the understanding given him – the express likeness of His own image. For thus says God: “Let us make man in Our image, and after Our likeness. So God made man; male and female He created them.” Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, “Increase and multiply.” We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.

CHAPTER 34 – GREAT IS THE REWARD OF GOOD WORKS WITH GOD. JOINED TOGETHER IN HARMONY, LET US IMPLORE THAT REWARD FROM HIM.

The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: “Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.” He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will. Let us consider the whole multitude of His angels, how they stand ever ready to minister to His will. For the Scripture says, “Ten thousand times ten thousand stood around Him, and thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and cried, Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of Sabaoth; the whole creation is full of His glory.” And let us therefore, conscientiously gathering together in harmony, cry to Him earnestly, as with one mouth, that we may be made partakers of His great and glorious promises. For [the Scripture] says, “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, the things which He has prepared for those who wait for Him.”

LINK

Peace,

Jose

 

[pablope]

That does not solve anything either. I could use the same arguments against you.

How?

Who’s idea of Tradition?

There is only one Tradition…described by Ireneus;

St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…1Clem 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.

The Orthodox view which rejects most the the Papal doctrines or the Roman Catholic view?

Let me ask…when did they reject it? Before or after 1054? And what do they actually reject? The development after 1054?

Did the Orthodox reject the Pope or did the Pope declare himself the head of the Church without authority.

Is their rejection of the papal authority based on the Patriarch of Constantinople wanting to be the Pope himself?

They rejected the bishop of Rome…but they wanted the authority for themselves…so what does that make of the Orthodox view?

You will claim Jesus gave the Pope this power and the Orthodox will say you do not understand it properly.

Who did Jesus make His Vicar here on earth? The Archbishop of Canterbury?

You don’t make a point!

Or is it, you do not want to see the point?

 

[JPeter]

In my experience, the “generally” is general, indeed, espcially of late. But no formualry is binding (including the Articles or the Homilies, in the sense a Confession, or the CCC is. The Articles themselves bind no one, save (technically) the ordinands of the CoE. An Erastian Church gets to do that sort of thing. Anglicanism is not, anymore, Erastian, in general.

GKC

I would have to research that a little more. I was not taught this.

 

[pablope]

pablope;9639620:

It was the disobedience of Rome that allowed for the arranged marriage of Henry to Catherine to begin with.

How? Who did Rome disobey?

 

[JPeter]

You might as well include the full chapter:



However , we can’t leave these other 2 out:

LINK

Peace,

Jose

What are you trying to show me?

 

[pablope]

You have to read the wording carefully.

Imputed righteousness and infused righteousness are two very different things. Both forms of righteousness allow you to say that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works, but they mean something very different by it.

s.:nunchuk:

I think only one can work…not both.

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/infused-righteousness-versus-imputed-righteousness-which-one-entitles-us-to-enter-heaven/

Imputed righteousness means we use Christ’ righteousness accepted by faith alone to cover our unrighteousness – in other words we do not contribute anything and we are declared righteous. It is like Christ covers our dirty robe (the dirt represents our sins) with his spotless robe and He needs to do it only once.

Infused righteousness, on the other hand, means God through Christ helps us to become righteous. Note that the source of righteousness is God, not us, yet the outcome of justification is we become righteous.

Using similar analogy of dirty robe representing our sin, in infused righteousness God through Christ helps us to clean our dirty robe. This needs our cooperation and it is an on-going process. Our dirty robe is first washed clean through (Sacrament of) Baptism. Whenever we make it dirty again through sinning, God through Christ helps us to clean it through (Sacrament of) Reconciliation. When we die with our robe still stained with venial sin then purgatory will cleanse it.
So, let me ask…here you are, standing before God…using Imputed righteousness…using Christ to cover your sins and what not…and God asks you…have you cleansed yourself of sin?

What is your reply going to be? Are you going to say…I am clean (when in fact, you are not) and use Christ to cover yourself? Isn’t this lying? And do you think God will be blind and not see through what you said?
*

Further from the link above…Which righteousness entitles us to enter heaven? In Matthew 25:31-46 the sheep are welcomed into heaven while the goats are sent to hell Verse 46 boldly says that the righteous will go to eternal life. Are they declared righteous or made righteous (hence are righteous)? Verses 35 and 36 tell us that they did righteous acts, i.e. they did not use Christ’ righteousness to cover their unrighteousness or to make their unrighteous things appear righteous (before God). 1 John 3:8 defines righteousness as “He who does right is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous”. Certainly to believe in Christ is one act that leads to righteousness – but it is not the only one. The phrase “He who does right” implies our cooperation. The goats are condemned to hell because they did not do righteous acts or they are not unrighteous (1 Corinthians 6:9). They are not declared unrighteous but they are indeed unrighteous.

 

[JPeter]

There is only one Tradition…described by Ireneus;

St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…1Clem 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.

I see no problem here.

Let me ask…when did they reject it? Before or after 1054? And what do they actually reject? The development after 1054?

I would agree with the Orthodox in saying that it never existed and the Roman Church began to teach it because she was power hungry.

I

s their rejection of the papal authority based on the Patriarch of Constantinople wanting to be the Pope himself?

They rejected the bishop of Rome…but they wanted the authority for themselves…so what does that make of the Orthodox view?

The vote was 4 to 1. I do not believe in Roman view is Apostolic, or catholic, or biblical, or patristic, but merely Roman.

Who did Jesus make His Vicar here on earth? The Archbishop of Canterbury?

We understand doctrines to be dogmatic where the Church came together as a whole. The 7 councils. The Archbishop of Canterbury makes no such claim. After Jesus declares Peter the Rock he also calls him Satan. No one takes that literally. Most of the holy Fathers, as Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, Hilary, and Bede, interpret this passage: Upon this rock. Chrysostom says thus: “Upon this rock,” not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Hilary says: To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, “Thou art the Son of the living God.” Therefore the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church.

 

[JPeter]

I think only one can work…not both.

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/infused-righteousness-versus-imputed-righteousness-which-one-entitles-us-to-enter-heaven/

Imputed righteousness means we use Christ’ righteousness accepted by faith alone to cover our unrighteousness – in other words we do not contribute anything and we are declared righteous. It is like Christ covers our dirty robe (the dirt represents our sins) with his spotless robe and He needs to do it only once.

Infused righteousness, on the other hand, means God through Christ helps us to become righteous. Note that the source of righteousness is God, not us, yet the outcome of justification is we become righteous.

Using similar analogy of dirty robe representing our sin, in infused righteousness God through Christ helps us to clean our dirty robe. This needs our cooperation and it is an on-going process. Our dirty robe is first washed clean through (Sacrament of) Baptism. Whenever we make it dirty again through sinning, God through Christ helps us to clean it through (Sacrament of) Reconciliation. When we die with our robe still stained with venial sin then purgatory will cleanse it.
So, let me ask…here you are, standing before God…using Imputed righteousness…using Christ to cover your sins and what not…and God asks you…have you cleansed yourself of sin?

What is your reply going to be? Are you going to say…I am clean (when in fact, you are not) and use Christ to cover yourself? Isn’t this lying? And do you think God will be blind and not see through what you said?
*

Further from the link above…Which righteousness entitles us to enter heaven? In Matthew 25:31-46 the sheep are welcomed into heaven while the goats are sent to hell Verse 46 boldly says that the righteous will go to eternal life. Are they declared righteous or made righteous (hence are righteous)? Verses 35 and 36 tell us that they did righteous acts, i.e. they did not use Christ’ righteousness to cover their unrighteousness or to make their unrighteous things appear righteous (before God). 1 John 3:8 defines righteousness as “He who does right is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous”. Certainly to believe in Christ is one act that leads to righteousness – but it is not the only one. The phrase “He who does right” implies our cooperation. The goats are condemned to hell because they did not do righteous acts or they are not unrighteous (1 Corinthians 6:9). They are not declared unrighteous but they are indeed unrighteous.

Scripture makes it absolutely clear we cannot contribute the least speck to our salvation. Our baptism clothed us in Christ’s perfect righteousness (Galatians 3:27). By his Son’s life, death, and resurrection God declared us—by nature wicked—to be righteous in his sight (Romans 4:5). Even our faith, which clings to Christ’s salvation, is part of God’s complete gift package (Ephesians 2:8,9) worked by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3) through the gospel (Romans 10:17).

You are correct that salvation can be lost. However’ In the final analysis, it’s only unbelief that damns and not “bad behavior” itself. Yet carelessly persisting in sin destroys faith. In Luke 8 Jesus speaks of those who fall in times of testing and others whose faith is choked by life’s worries, riches, and pleasures. 1 Timothy 1 mentions those who shipwrecked their faith by not “holding on to faith and a good conscience.”

We cannot contribute one speck to our salvation, but by our own arrogance or carelessness we can throw it away. Therefore, Scripture urges us repeatedly to fight the good fight of faith (Ephesians 6 and 2 Timothy 4 for example). We can participate in this good fight because the Spirit planted a new self within us when he brought us to faith.

However, this cooperation in sanctification is in no way a meritorious work that partially earns salvation. Our sanctified life does not make us any more children of God than we already are. We are already heirs of heaven in Jesus.

Second, it’s not our good works that preserve faith. Good works aren’t a means of grace. Good works flow from faith worked in us by the means of grace. The most crucial battle of the good fight is living in daily repentance. That’s hardly a meritorious work!

Daily repentance means that the Spirit through his law crushes our natural proud arrogance. Daily we learn to hate what our sinful nature loves. Then daily through the gospel the Spirit cheers our spirit through Christ’s forgiveness that is new every morning. Through daily repentance the same gospel that created our faith preserves and strengthens our faith.

 

[GKC]

I would have to research that a little more. I was not taught this.

Act of Subscription, 1571. It was the legal implementation of what Elizabeth intended in the Articles, which were an example of statecraft as theology, to govern her fractious Church in peace. The 1571 Act in essence was a sort of job requirement/qualifications for the ordinands of the CoE, including to not maintain or affirm doctrine contrary to the Articles. Or be deprived of their ecclesiastical status. Laity not included.

GKC

 

[JPeter]

Act of Subscription, 1571. It was the legal implementation of what Elizabeth intended in the Articles, which were an example of statecraft as theology, to govern her fractious Church in peace. The 1571 Act in essence was a sort of job requirement/qualifications for the ordinands of the CoE, including to not maintain or affirm doctrine contrary to the Articles. Or be deprived of their ecclesiastical status. Laity not included.

GKC

I am glad you pointed this out. I will talk to my Priest. I cannot really answer on something I am unsure about. But if the Clergy have to believe it then why would the laity believe anything else?

 

[GKC]

I am glad you pointed this out. I will talk to my Priest. I cannot really answer on something I am unsure about.

Two Anglicans, 3 viewpoints, as is the norm.

GKC

 

[JPeter]

Two Anglicans, 3 viewpoints, as is the norm.

GKC

I don’t mind different viewpoints but I have always thought we had to keep within the formularies with our views.

 

[JPeter]

So, let me ask…here you are, standing before God…using Imputed righteousness…using Christ to cover your sins and what not…and God asks you…have you cleansed yourself of sin?

What is your reply going to be? Are you going to say…I am clean (when in fact, you are not) and use Christ to cover yourself? Isn’t this lying? And do you think God will be blind and not see through what you said?

I cannot imagine having to decide if certain of my sins are mortal, if the venial ones will send me to the torments of purgatory, if the church is always right, if indulgences are necessary, if my confessions are truly adequate, my prayers sufficient, and my good works acceptable. I want to know that I am safe with God, safe with the wholesome, saving righteousness of Christ. I want to plead nothing but his blood, no hope but his word of promise, no worry but his peace, no guilt but his shame, no darkness but his light. Somewhere, someday, I will stand before God. On that day, heaven and earth may flee away, but I will stand serene, for at my side will be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. I cannot thank him enough. We cannot praise him enough. To him be the honor and the glory and the power forever and forever. Amen.

 

[GKC]

I don’t mind different viewpoints but I have always thought we had to keep within the formularies with our views.

A good thing to wonder would be what authority would require that, formally, today. But yes, certainly, formularies define, in some sense Anglican essence. As do the liturgies. The question being who definitively says what being within the bounds of the formualries (Articles, in particular) means. Archbishop Bramhall and Bishop Bull made some comments on that in the 1700s, give or take.

GKC

 

[Porknpie]

Amen.

Clement of Rome (c. 30–100): And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen

.
Prosmith - you have to read more of Clement. He believed we are saved by faith and works, not faith alone.

“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,’ saith [the Scripture], ‘resisteth the proud, but giveth 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." Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 30 (A.D. 98).

Amen!