Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 5)
May 18th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ROME
The Church finally set forth its views on justification in the mid-sixteenth century at the Council of Trent. Trent was Rome’s answer to the Reformation, and much of the Council’s work was specifically designed to set Catholic doctrine in stark contrast to Protestant ideas. Nowhere is the divergence between Rome and the Reformers more pronounced than in the Council’s handling of justification.
The Canons and Decrees of Trent are not merely the archaic opinion of some medieval Bishops. They represent the official position of the Church to this day. All subsequent Catholic councils have uniformly reaffirmed Trent’s pronouncements. In fact, the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s declared these doctrines “irreformable.” All faithful Catholics are commanded to receive them as infallible truth. Therefore, to understand Roman Catholic doctrine on justification, we must go back to the Council of Trent.
Trent did not overtly deny that believers are saved by divine grace. In fact, the Council specifically stated that “God justifies sinners by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” That, of course, is an echo of Romans 3:24. But Scripture goes a step further than Trent was willing to go. Romans 11:6 says, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (emphasis added). Trent took a position that made works an essential part of justification. In doing so, they were left with a grace that is “no longer grace.” So although Trent started with an affirmation of divine grace, the doctrine of justification they described is actually “a different gospel” that corrupts the grace of God.
a process dependent on the believer, not a judicial act of God
The Council saw justification as a process whereby the sinner is actually made righteous. In other words, Trent said justification entails the whole process of sanctification. According to the Council, justification is “not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts by which an unrighteous man becomes righteous.”
Moreover, according to the Council, justification is a lifelong process. In fact, the process extends beyond this life and into the next. Purgatory is necessary to blot out the full debt of eternal punishment:
If anyone says that the guilt is remitted to every penitent sinner after the grace of justification has been received, and that the debt of eternal punishment is so blotted out that there remains no debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened—let him be anathema.
There is no guarantee that anyone will persevere in the process, and some may fall away and be lost forever. But “those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of justification may be again justified . . . through the sacrament of penance.”
In other words, good works are necessary to preserve justification, and when believers sin, they must regain their justification through a religious ritual. This is an unmistakable denial of sola fide.
Faith plus works, not faith alone
While giving lip service to the importance of faith in justification, Trent nevertheless declared that the instrumental cause of justification (the means by which it is obtained) is not faith, but “the sacrament of baptism.”
And in a similar vein, the Council ruled, “If anyone says that the righteousness received is not preserved and also not increased before God by good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of its increase, let him be anathema.” In other words, works are necessary to obtain, to preserve, and to increase justification. If works are not added to faith, justification stops short of its goal.
Even grace is conferred through works in the Roman Catholic system:
If anyone says that by the said sacraments . . . grace is not conferred through the work worked but [says] that faith alone in the divine promises is sufficient for the obtaining of grace, let him be anathema.
The Council further issued an explicit repudiation of sola fide:
If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.
In other words, Trent decreed that anyone who claims to be justified on the basis of faith alone apart from works is condemned to eternal damnation.
grace infused, not righteousness imputed
As noted earlier, when justification is mingled with sanctification, the grounds for justification becomes the sinner’s own imperfect righteousness rather than the perfect righteousness of Christ. Trent explicitly acknowledged this:
If anyone says that men are justified either by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ alone, or by the remission of sins alone, to the exclusion of the grace and love that is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and is inherent in them; or even that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God—let him be anathema.
Here the Council was expressly contradicting the Reformation teaching that Christ’s perfect righteousness, imputed to the sinner’s account, is the ground on which we stand acceptable before God. Instead, the Council stated that grace is infused into the believer’s heart, resulting in a righteousness that is inherent (the believer’s own righteousness). That inherent righteousness—which must be perfected by sanctification and purgatory—provides the grounds for acceptance before God.
a different gospel, not the biblical message
Scripture teaches no such thing. In fact, the Catholic doctrine of justification is precisely what Paul condemned as “a different gospel.” According to the Bible, God “reckons righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:4-6). Paul counted all other things as refuse and dung for the sake of a right doctrine of justification: “In order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” (Phil. 3:8-9, emphasis added).
That is a plain repudiation of the very doctrine taught by the Council of Trent!
Scripture also teaches that justification is a declarative act of God, not a process. Jesus promised immediate salvation to believers: “He who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (Jn. 5:24). That verse clearly states that on the basis of faith alone, sinners pass out of death and into eternal life. Sanctification is a result, not a prerequisite; and purgatory is never even mentioned in Scripture. In fact, whenever the Bible speaks of believers’ justification, it always speaks of a past-tense event that occurs at the moment of faith: “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1, emphasis added). “Having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him” (v. 9, emphasis added). ”There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1, emphasis added). Our justification is an accomplished fact, not an unfinished project.
Scripture also makes clear that justification is by faith alone, not by faith plus works: “By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9, emphasis added).
Justification by faith alone is and always has been the only way of salvation:
For what does the [Old Testament] Scripture say? ”And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:3-6, emphasis added).
What must we do to be saved? Scripture answers that question in the clearest possible terms: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31). Works have no part in our justification. The only thing that can make any sinner acceptable to God is the imputed merit of the Lord Jesus Christ.
(To be concluded tomorrow)
About 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole – four months of absolute terror. I wanted to end my life, but somehow [Holy Spirit], I reached out to a friend who took me to hospital. I had three visits [hospital] in four months – I actually thought I was in hell. I imagine I was going through some sort of metamorphosis [mental, physical & spiritual]. I had been seeing a therapist [1994] on a regular basis, up until this point in time. I actually thought I would be locked away – but the hospital staff was very supportive [I had no control over my process]. I was released from hospital 16th September 1994, but my fear, pain & shame had only subsided a little. I remember this particular morning waking up [home] & my process would start up again [fear, pain, & shame]. No one could help me, not even my therapist [I was terrified]. I asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on me & forgive me my sins. Slowly, all my fear has dissipated & I believe Jesus delivered me from my “psychological prison.” I am a practicing Catholic & the Holy Spirit is my friend & strength; every day since then has been a joy & blessing. I deserve to go to hell for the life I have led, but Jesus through His sacrifice on the cross, delivered me from my inequities. John 3: 8, John 15: 26, are verses I can relate to, organically. He’s a real person who is with me all the time. I have so much joy & peace in my life, today, after a childhood spent in orphanages [England & Australia]. God LOVES me so much. Fear, pain, & shame, are no longer my constant companions. I just wanted to share my experience with you [Luke 8: 16 – 17].
Peace Be With You
Micky
John,
First off, I’ll try to keep my posts shorter by posting a couple at a time..
You said: The Church finally set forth its views on justification in the mid-sixteenth century at the Council of Trent.
I say: The Church “restated” it’s view on justification just as it restated it’s belief in the Trinity in 325 to counter the Arian heresy.
You said: But Scripture goes a step further than Trent was willing to go. Romans 11:6 says, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (emphasis added). Trent took a position that made works an essential part of justification. In doing so, they were left with a grace that is “no longer grace.” So although Trent started with an affirmation of divine grace, the doctrine of justification they described is actually “a different gospel” that corrupts the grace of God.
I say: The Catholic Church has never taught that we are justified by works..you’ll need to prove that
Faith and works has always been taught and believed by The Catholic Church as it says in Galatians…”Faith working through love” It is never works alone or faith alone as James 2:24 clearly says.
You said: when believers sin, they must regain their justification through a religious ritual. This is an unmistakable denial of sola fide.
I say: The Authority for the “religious ritual” you speak of (The Sacrament of Reconciliation or better known as Confession or Penance) was given by Jesus Christ himself in John Chapter 20:
21 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
Furthermore, it has been practiced since the beginning as are all of the seven sacraments:
The Didache
“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
“You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).
Ignatius of Antioch
“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).
“For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (ibid.,
.
Irenaeus
“[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).
Hippolytus
“[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
“[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him” (The Lapsed 15:1–3 (A.D. 251]).
“Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord” (ibid., 28).
“[S]inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]” (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253]).
“And do not think, dearest brother, that either the courage of the brethren will be lessened, or that martyrdoms will fail for this cause, that penance is relaxed to the lapsed, and that the hope of peace [i.e., absolution] is offered to the penitent. . . . For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given” (ibid., 51[55]:20).
“But I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentance is not to be granted to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the penitent, when it is written, ‘Remember whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works’ [Rev. 2:5], which certainly is said to him who evidently has fallen, and whom the Lord exhorts to rise up again by his deeds [of penance], because it is written, ‘Alms deliver from death’ [Tob. 12:9]” (ibid., 51[55]:22).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
“You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious physician [Christ], you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us” (Treatises 7:3 [A.D. 340]).
Basil the Great
“It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles” (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]).
John Chrysostom
“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).
Ambrose of Milan
“For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests only” (Penance 1:1 [A.D. 388]).
Jerome
“If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound . . . then his brother and his master, who have the word [of absolution] that will cure him, cannot very well assist him” (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 10:11 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine
“When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance” (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16 [A.D. 395]).
You said: While giving lip service to the importance of faith in justification, Trent nevertheless declared that the instrumental cause of justification (the means by which it is obtained) is not faith, but “the sacrament of baptism.”
I say: The regenerative nature of the sacrament of baptism has also been believed since the begining;
Justin Martyr
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Tertullian
“[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’” (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).
Hippolytus
“The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism” (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 [A.D. 217]).
The Recognitions of Clement (Nate, your favorite!!)
“But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (The Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).
Testimonies Concerning the Jews
“That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]. . . . Also in the same place: ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you’ [John 6:53]. That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works” (Testimonies Concerning the Jews 3:2:25–26 [A.D. 240]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’” (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).
Council of Carthage VII
“And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ . . . Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ” (Seventh Carthage [A.D. 256]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul. . . . When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And he says, ‘Unless a man be born again,’ and he adds the words ‘of water and of the Spirit,’ ‘he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it” (Catechetical Lectures 3:4 [A.D. 350]).
Athanasius
“[A]s we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened” (Four Discourses Against the Arians 3:26[33] [A.D. 360]).
Basil the Great
“This then is what it means to be ‘born again of water and Spirit’: Just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirit’s presence there” (The Holy Spirit 15:35 [A.D. 375]).
Ambrose of Milan
“Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and the Son. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God” (The Holy Spirit 1:6[75–76] [A.D. 381]).
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11–12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism.
. . . ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’” (Abraham 2:11:79–84 [A.D. 387]).
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism are one: water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8): And if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water, for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’” (The Mysteries 4:20 [A.D. 390]).
Gregory of Nyssa
“[In] the birth by water and the Spirit, [Jesus] himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by his own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things he became the firstborn of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to his own by water and the Spirit” (Against Eunomius 2:8 [A.D. 382]).
John Chrysostom
“[N]o one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of Christ]” (The Priesthood 3:5–6 [A.D. 387]).
Gregory of Nazianz
“Such is the grace and power of baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin. And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the Spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths” (Oration on Holy Baptism 7–8 [A.D. 388]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
“Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13]. . . . [H]e that out of contempt will not be baptized shall be condemned as an unbeliever and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, ‘Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ And again, ‘He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned’” [Mark 16:16] (Apostolic Constitutions 6:3:15 [A.D. 400]).
Augustine
“It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam” (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]).
“Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,’ made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’” [Matt. 10:32] (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).
John,
Your right, the word “purgatory” is never even mentioned in Scripture, but as I said before neither is the “Trinity” ot the “Incarnation” but they are all taught.
Let’s start with 1 Cor 3:
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it,
11 for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.
12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,
13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work.
14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
15 But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.
Recap: the work of each will come to light..for the day (judgement) will disclose it. one will suffer loss and be saved but only as through fire..sounds like a purging through fire to me..
Let’s go next to Hebrews 12:
22 No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering,
23 and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect,
29 For our God is a consuming fire
The “spirits of the just” they must be justified (saved) and outside of the flesh but “made perfect” ..since nothing unclean can enter heaven as Revelation 21:27 states.
Also, 1 Peter 3:19:
19 In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,
This can’t be hell, since those in Hell are there eternally and can’t be saved..so there must be another state..it can’t be heaven, since they wouldn’t be in prison..
The following is from 2 Maccabees and you can see from the passage below why Luther had to due away with it..
Maccabees 2 states: It is a holy and pious thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins (2Macc.12:46).
He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. (2Mac.12:43-46)
Jews, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox have always historically proclaimed the reality of the final purification. It was not until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century that anyone denied this doctrine. As the quotes below from the early Church Fathers show, purgatory has been part of the Christian faith from the very beginning.
Tertullian
“We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]” (The Crown 3:3 [A.D. 211]).
“A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice” (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace [i.e., reconciliation] is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigor of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord” (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out” (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]).
Gregory of Nyssa
“If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire” (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).
John Chrysostom
“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them” (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).
“Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf” (Homilies on Philippians 3:9–10 [A.D. 402]).
Augustine
“There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended” (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).
“But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death” (ibid., 172:2).
“Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment” (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).
“That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).
“The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death” (ibid., 29:109).
The early bird gets the worm; could I be the second mouse that gets the cheese?
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Peter 1:23
The water that cleanses is through the washing of the Word of God, not H2O.
Chilling anathemas that clearly go against the grain of Scripture regardless of who may have believed them at one time or another.
Titus 3:4-6 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
(Gerry, God richly bless you for your interaction here, it has been personally enriching)
Gerry,
It’s good to see you here, I agree.
Are you ever planning to respond to my question about Eph 2:8-10?
While you’re at it, could you comment on how Hebrews 6:4-6 relates to the RC dogma that says that a proper action of repentance, penance, etc is sufficient to bring a person back into justification after having been baptised and later committing a mortal sin?
4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
It sounds like they can’t come back.
Implication - either true sons DON’T EVER fall away (our position here), or these Heb 6 people were never true sons, or fallen true sons can’t ever ever come back. What do you think?
Of course, other RCs are welcome to respond to both of my questions too. I’ve been in line a while!
Gerry,
Good morning. As a west coast participant in this discussion, I always get here late.
I would like to respond to several of your comments. First, to your quotes on baptism.
Have you read Baptism in the Early Church by Hendrick Stander and Johannes Louw? They are patristic scholars from the University of Pretoria who have written, arguably, the finest and most extensive treatment of baptism in the early church. They do not promote or represent any theological viewpoint, but attempt to give an objective overview of this early church practice.
In their opening chapter, they warn about the way that patristic quotations are often “piled up giving the impression of numerous ‘proofs’” (p. 29) when in fact the passages in context either do not apply or are historically and theologically nuanced.
The primary finding of the book regards infant baptism, noting that the practice of infant baptism was unknown in the early church until at least the third-century, and not widespread until the fourth and fifth centuries. This, of course, flies in the face of modern Roman Catholic practice. The book also underscores the fact that the primary mode of baptism in the early church was immersion (not sprinkling); and also that triple baptism (by immersion) was taught as the proper procedure.
The book also addresses, as a secondary study, the relationship between baptism and salvation in the early church. It is true that water baptism was linked to the remission of sins; but this is probably because emphasis was placed on the external symbol of regeneration (even if regeneration is a spiritual reality that takes place through Spirit baptism).
For example, regarding Justin Martyr, the book notes:
The authors later explain why the Church Fathers so closely associated baptism with salvation — it was the external action that publicly declared the internal reality of repentant faith (cf. p. 87) and “was used to initiate a new convert into the circle of believers” (p. 52). “Since conversion was always followed by baptism, the Church Fathers regarded these two acts as being closely related. Consequently terms such as ‘illumination’ (’enlightenment’) or ‘rebirth’ (’regeneration’) were used for either conversion or baptism. The latter two issues were regarded as almost simultaneous acts” (p. 60).
The authors freely admit that the early Church Fathers associated baptism with the washing away of sins. But, again, it was an external act that symbolized what had already taken place in the heart. Notice what Tertullian says in On Repentance, 6:
In concluding their discussion, Stander and Louw make several interesting observations:
First, “baptism as such is not a rite peculiar to Christianity. Many other relgions of the ancient world practiced baptism as an initiation rite. The notion of washing, which is such an obvious aspect of baptism, provided the essence of purifying a person in order for that person to be accepted into a particular religious community” (p. 180).
Second, “the oldest writings emphasized these basic notions by focusing on the relevance of water and the cross of Christ, as can already be seen in the Epistle of Barnabas. Going down into the baptismal water symbolized participation the death of Christ on the cross and performed, at the same time, a washing away of sins, so that the person emerging from the water is performatively cleansed and regenerated symbolically, by sharing in the death and resurrection of Christ. The theology underlying these conceptions was linked to Paul’s statement in Romans 6 that baptism entails being baptized into the death of Christ. (pp. 180 – 81; emphasis mine)
Third, “within the practice of baptism in the early church these symbolic features underscored the original, theological base, at least in the first three centuries. However, one should never think of the early church as a unity having a specific codified dogma. The first four centuries is a compendium of various points of view and various emphases on many issues” (p. 181)
Fourth, in discussing the development of baptism within the first four centuries, the authors write: “Within this theological framework, baptism became (especially in the way it is formulated by Chrysostom) the most exclusive donator of Christian blessings. The symbol became [i.e. developed into over time] the actual means. The rite of baptism itself, rather than Christ, became the guarantee of eternal salvation” (p. 184; emphasis mine).
One important note on tradition, Stander and Louw make this comment:
I provide all of this in the hopes that it will be helpful, by way of context, in thinking through the patristic writings regarding water baptism, and also tradition.
Thanks,
NB
Gerry,
You wrote: I say: The Catholic Church has never taught that we are justified by works..you’ll need to prove that
Faith and works has always been taught and believed by The Catholic Church as it says in Galatians…”Faith working through love” It is never works alone or faith alone as James 2:24 clearly says.
My response: On the one hand you state that the Catholic Church has never taught that we are justified by works. On the other hand, you state that faith and works have always been taught and believed by the Catholic Church.
Can you help me understand how you reconcile those two statements? Are works necessary for salvation or not?
To quote again from the Catholic Catechism:
Thanks,
NB
Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
(John 6:28-29)
The WORK of God is to believe. Seems pretty clear.
Gerry,
With regard to your defense of the Catholic practice of penance, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that penance is necessary for the expiation of sins. Note what is said in the Catholic Catechism:
In contrast to this, Protestantism teaches that Christ alone can make satisfaction for our sins. We add nothing to His once-for-all atoning sacrifice.
Our problem is not with the idea of confession of sins, since we are taught in the New Testament to confess our sins to one another (James 5:16). From a Protestant perspective, we would not have a problem with most of the church fathers you cite in this regard.
The primary problem we would have with the Roman Catholic teaching on penance is the idea that Christians can somehow, in some part, make satisfaction for their sins before God. Since Christ paid the price in full, Christians can add nothing to perfect satisfaction He has provided.
We would also question the perogative of Catholic priests to receive such confessions and supposedly dispense forgiveness — since the book of Hebrews teaches the priesthood of every believer and the direct mediatorship of Jesus Christ.
By the way, are you aware of William Webster’s book, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History? The book systematically shows how much of current Roman Catholic practice is without patristic precedent. I think you would find it very interesting.
Thanks,
NB
An interesting wrinkle is that Martin Luther, Mr. Faith himself, also taught that baptism was essential for salvation, and most Lutherans believe this today.
Luther did not consider baptism a “work,” but rather as the moment of forgiveness of sins. The early church did indeed hold to this view.
I’m more concerned with this idea of “obedience” as being mandatory for salvation, and almsgiving, etc. I haven’t seen this addressed yet. That would certainly be a “work”.
Gerry,
The longer you say, the least you are (Mt. 5:18-19).
JSB,
That’s interesting. We would argue that this position that you’ve described is not biblically supportable, just FYI.
Good teaching from Pastor John. He teaches and preaches with authority. God bless him.
Jesus came to SEEK & to SAVE the lost sheep. He’s the Good Shepherd who calls His sheep and they WILL follow, because they know His voice. And He will lay down His life for His sheep. And these sheep are in His hand, and in the Father’s hand.
Who can pluck His sheep from His hand?
What an awesome God we have!
After an extensive treatment of the supposed historicity of the Roman Catholic Church, William Webster, in The Church of Rome at the Bar of History writes this (p. 150):
From the historical standpoint, the Roman Catholic Church claims that the content of its tradition can be traced back two thousand years through a unanimous consent of the Fathers in unbroken succession to the apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ himself. As we have seen, this unanimous consent never existed. The facts demonstrate that not only is there no unanimous consent among the Fathers for the Roman tradition, but that many of the teachings now promoted by Rome were either contradicted, opposed or repudiated by the magisterium of the early Church.
The tradition of Roman Catholicism is simply not true, either biblically or historically. The Church of Rome responds to this judgment by appealing to papal infallibility as a guarantee of the impossibility of such a defection. But the theory of infallibility is equally opposed by the facts of history and the truth of Scripture.
Gerry said:
I say: The Catholic Church has never taught that we are justified by works..you’ll need to prove that
The Angelic Doctor, Thomas Aquinas, of the Roman Catholic Church articulated the ordo salutis (order of salvation) as such:
1. Gratutious infusion of grace
2. Moral cooperation doing the best one can with the aid of grace
3. Reward of eternal life as a just due (see Steven Ozment, “Age of Reform,” 233)
Step #2, above, is where cooperation, of course enabled by God’s grace, is the “proof” that Roman Catholics follow a sacramental salvific system that “results” in “meriting” eternal salvation (i.e. #3) via obeying the strictures provided within the framework of the Roman Catholic Church. This is at odds with Protestant salvation in models illustrated by the concept of sola fide, sola gratia. Viz. salvation (justification) is a gift from God, there is nothing that man can do to merit this donum gratiae, not even via cooperating with God’s grace. Iustitia Dei/Iustitia Christi
Warning: long comment ahead.
On the issue of Tradition and its relationship to Scripture (which along with sola fide has been the primary point of discussion this week), William Webster provides a helpful appendix with the following patristic quotes (of special note is Jerome’s comments on the Apocrypha):
Irenaeus (140 – 202): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3.1.1)
Irenaeus (again): Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God. (Against Heresies, 3.5.1)
Tertullian (155 – 240): Let them, then, prove to us that those angels derived their flesh from the stars. If they do not prove it because it is not written, neither will the flesh of Christ get its origin therefrom, for which they borrow the precedent of angels. . . . But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing. (On the Flesh of Christ, 6)
Tertullian (again): The Scriptures . . . indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. (Agaisnt Praxeas, 11)
Tertullian (again): On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near to the apostles . . . We have also St. John’s foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will rest on John as their author. . . . I say . . . that the Gospel of Luke . . . has stood its ground from its very first publication . . . The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage—I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew—whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. (Against Marcion, 4.5)
Hippolytus (d. 235): There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn. (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9)
Cyprian (c. 200 – 258): “‘Be there no innovation,’ he says, ‘beyond what has been handed down to us.’ Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and the Gospel, or does it come from the injunctions and Epistles of the Apostles? For that we are to do what is written, God testifieth and admonisheth, saying to Joshua: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt mediate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’ Likewise the Lord, sending His Apostles, directs that the nations should be baptized and taught to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded. If then it is commanded in the Gospel, or is contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that ‘such as come from any heresy whatsoever should not be baptized, but hands only laid on them in order to repentance’; then be this divine and holy tradition observed. (Epistle 74.1-2)
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – 215): But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.
Clement of Alexandria (again): He, who has spurned the ecclesiastical tradition, and darted off to the opinion of heretical men, has ceased to be a man of God and to remain faithful to the Lord. But he who has returned from this deception, on hearing the Scriptures, and turned his life to the truth, is, as it were, from being a man made a god. For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, ‘in divers manners and at sundry times’, leading form the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin be preserved. He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things. What is subjected to criticism is not believed till it is so subjected; so that what needs criticism cannot be a first principle . . . and receiving in abundance, form the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth. (The Stromata, 16)
Origen (c. 185 – 254): But that we may not appear to build our assertions on subjects of such importance and difficulty on the ground of inference alone, or to require the assent of our hearers to what is only conjectural, let us see whether we can obtain any declarations from holy Scripture, by the authority of which these positions may be more credibly maintained. (De Principiis 1.5.4)
Origen (again): In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of the Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing. For as all gold which was outside of the temple was not sanctified, so every sense which is outside fo the divine Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some, is not sacred because it is not limited by the sense of Scripture. Therefore we should not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures as in the temples of God. (Homily 25 on Matthew)
Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386): For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do no then believe me because I tell these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures. (The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17)
Cyril (again): Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if any thing be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spake the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, when He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say. (Lecture 16.2)
Chrysostom (344 – 407): These then are the reasons; but it is necessary to establish them all from the Scriptures, and to show with exactness that all that has been said on this subject is not an invention of human reasoning, but the very sentence of the Scriptures. (Homilies on the Statues 1.14)
Chrysostom (again): All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . . For doctrine. For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or be ignorant of any thing. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if any thing is deficient, we may have it added to us. That the man of God may be perfect. For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn any thing, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us! (Homily 9 on 2 Timothy)
Hilary of Poitiers (315 – 368): We believe in accordance with evangelical and apostolic tradition in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator, Maker and Disposer of all things that are, and from whom are all things. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, His Only-begotten Son . . . And in the Holy Ghost . . . Having therefore held this faith from the beginning, and being resolved to hold it to the end in the sight of God and Christ, we say anathema to every heretical and perverted sect, and if any man teaches contrary to the wholesome and right faith of the Scriptures . . . let him be anathema . . . For all those things which are written in the divine Scriptures by Prophets and by Apostles we believe and follow truly with fear. (On the Councils; cited in Schaff, 29 – 30)
Augustine (354 – 430): What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher. (De Bono Viduitatis, 2)
Augustine (again): Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: Why do you want to remove these things from the midst? Because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by divine oracles. (The Unity of the Church, 3)
Jerome (347 – 420): What the Savior says was written down was certainly written down. Where was it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the example cited by the disciples. (Against Rufinus, 2.27)
Jerome (again): As then the Church reads Judith, Tobit and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. (Preface to Jerome’s Works, p. 492)
Eusebius (263 – 340): For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor . . . but that from his successor, Zephryrinus, the truth had been corrupted. And what they say might seem plausible, if first of all the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them. (Church History, 28.3-4)
Athanasius (295 – 375): And I rejoiced over the constancy, sincerity, docility, and intelligence of the brethren, as we considered in order and with moderation the questions and the difficulties and the points of agreement. And we abstained from defending in every manner and contentiously the opinions which we had once held, unless they appeared to be correct. Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures. (Letter, 56.1)
Athanasius (again): For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both ‘known and read’ from the Divine Scriptures. (Letter, 60.6)
Athanasius (again): But our faith is right and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and the tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old . . . While the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, ‘Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh’; and in what Paul writes, ‘Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people for His own possession, and zealous of good works.’” (Letter, 56.1)
John of Damascus (645 – 749): Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times, and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us all the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honor, seeking for nothing beyond these . . . As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition. (Exposition of Orthodox Faith, 1.1)
I just wanted to say thank you Nate B.!
Your posts are great and just wanted to you know there is some major edification going around.
Keep up the good fight.
Nate,
With all due respect, did you read each quote? Since again, they are all Catholics and do not contradict Scripture and Tradition but actually verify it.
So let’s take a couple of these apart:
Irenaeus (140 – 202): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3.1.1)
He said “we have learned” NOT we have read..so first off..they were “taught” and not issued a bible (A teaching Church already existed).
“from those through whom the gospel has come down to us”
Boy..that sounds alot like “Apostolic succesion” and “Tradition” that was “handed down”
And lastly, “at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith”.
So we see exactly what I’ve been saying..”At a later time, handed down” (the scriptures came from “The Church” not the bible first then start “A” Church..that would be putting the cart before the horse).
We see in 1 Tim 3, the following:
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth..
“to be the ground and pillar of our faith”. Again, since the scriptures flowed out of The Church by the Holy Spirit there is nothing contained in them that contradicts Catholic doctorine as I have shown.
Irenaeus (again): Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God. (Against Heresies, 3.5.1
“the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the church, and is permanent among us” (WOW, if anything that “confirms” the authority of “Tradition”, thanks)
“let us revert to the scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God.”
Again, this proves that scripture is “also authoritative”
So, in summary it proves “Scripture and Tradition” .
Let’s look at another one:
Tertullian (155 – 240): Let them, then, prove to us that those angels derived their flesh from the stars. If they do not prove it because it is not written, neither will the flesh of Christ get its origin therefrom, for which they borrow the precedent of angels. . . . But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing. (On the Flesh of Christ, 6)
On the Flesh of Christ (Read it yourself)
This was written by Tertullian in confutation of certain heretics who denied the reality of Christ’s flesh, or at least its identity with human flesh—fearing that, if they admitted the reality of Christ’s flesh, they must also admit his resurrection in the flesh; and, consequently, the resurrection of the human body after death.
One more:
Eusebius (263 – 340): For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor . . . but that from his successor, Zephryrinus, the truth had been corrupted. And what they say might seem plausible, if first of all the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them. (Church History, 28.3-4)
Again, he starts with “for they”..read the rest he is refuting heretics which claim that the apostles taught what they taught “until” the time of Victor (Pope at the time) but that from his succesor Zephryrinus (Again Papal succession) the truth had been corrupted. And what they say might seem plausible, if first of all the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them. (Sounds alot like picking and choosing doctorine that is not in line with Scripture and Tradition)..
I could go on and on with all of them..
God bless..
David Moore,
You said: Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
(John 6:28-29)
The WORK of God is to believe. Seems pretty clear.
I say: Seems clear???
Let’s look at James 2:
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19 You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
Even the demons “believe” that and tremble.
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
“So we see exactly what I’ve been saying..”At a later time, handed down” (the scriptures came from “The Church” not the bible first then start “A” Church..that would be putting the cart before the horse).”
Thus from “The Church” (Catholic Church) came the sayings and was handed down (Scriptures). Rather than Scripture and then The Church (Catholic). Just want to make clear what Gerry is saying.
So Gerry is saying that the New Testament writers were Catholic’s!
“From the historical standpoint, the Roman Catholic Church claims that the content of its tradition can be traced back two thousand years through a unanimous consent of the Fathers in unbroken succession to the apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ himself.” Nate remarks
Thus, since the Apostles are thought to be Catholic, and they in turn spoke to the next group of men, the words spoken then became “Traditions” in which Catholics hold true as the Scriptures?”
In the Catholic Catechism: it reads:
“Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must ‘make satisfaction for’ or ‘expiate’ his sins. This satisfaction is also called ‘penance’” (P 1459).
Is this then saying, that the justification, or redemption, is not paid in full at the time of salvation? That there is a requirement for a full spiritual health reovery? And is that say Romans 8:1 is not correct: “There is therefore no condemnation for thsoe who are in Christ.” And justification is not an accomplished fact, but there is need to make sure justification will take place with “penance?”
Charles
Gerry,
Thanks for your reply.
In answer to your question, I did actually read each quote. (I was the one who typed up the entire appendix, as I do not have the book in electronic form.) I left it in its totality as it appears in Webster’s book.
Allow me to respond to several of your comments:
1) The fact that they are all “Catholics” (by which it appears you mean “Roman Catholics”) is again an anachronistic argument. Protestants look to these same men as their church “fathers.”
2) The point of these citations was to show that the church fathers associated apostolic tradition with that which was revealed in Scripture (as Stander and Louw noted — see my earlier comment on baptism), looking to Scripture as their ultimate authority. I believe these quotes substantiate that point.
3) Your analysis of Irenaeus’s first quote betrays the fact that you are reading into his words more than is actually there. The fact that he “learned” the truth, does not undermine the principle of sola scriptura. He does not tell us whether he learned it by reading it or by hearing it taught. (Preaching the Word is certainly a legitimate form of teaching Scripture [2 Tim. 4:2]). Either way, his point is that the content of what he learned was “the plan of our salvation . . . handed down to us in the Scriptures.” It is that which is “in the Scriptures” that Irenaeus considers “to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”
“Those through whom the gospel has come down to us” refers to the apostles. The apostles were those who “at one time proclaim[ed] in public” the gospel. Then, “at a later period, by the will of God, [they] handed down to us in the Scriptures” their apostolic teaching. The apostolic tradition, then, is contained in the Scriptures.
The phrase “at a later time” does not refer to the post-apostolic church. Rather, it refers to those who wrote the Scriptures. What they preached, they later wrote down in Scripture. If it refers to a time after the apostles, then it makes the author of the NT someone who came after the apostles. (I believe Charles brought this out in his comment above.) But this, we would agree, is not the case.
4) I believe your analysis of Irenaeus’s second quote to again be mistaken. When we read the word “tradition” we cannot automatically insert our understanding of “tradition” into the term. Rather, we must allow Irenaeus to define the term for us, which he does. The tradition that exists in the church is “the scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel.” In calling the church to rely on tradition, Irenaeus is calling them to “revert to the scriptural proof” of the apostles.
In Wednesday’s comments, I showed that Irenaeus delineated the content of “tradition” (in Against Heresies, 3.4.1-2) as that which included the following:
- belief in one God
- belief in His Son, Jesus Christ
- belief in the Virgin Birth
- belief in the deity and humanity of Christ
- belief in His death and resurrection
- belief in His glorious return
This “tradition” of Irenaeus is grounded in Scripture, and is far different from the unbiblical traditions claimed by the Roman Church.
5) I do not see how your citing of Tertullian disproves sola Scriptura, since Tertullian’s point in disproving the heretics was to appeal to Scripture (and not to tradition). Since the Scripture did not support the heretic’s claims, Tertullian rejected them as false.
6) Eusebius’s reference to the “times of Victor” and “his successor, Zephryrinus” is not suprising, since Eusebius was a historian he was naturally inclined to explaining the time of when things happened. Whether or not this proves or is even evidence of papal succession is something we will have to discuss later. (For those interested, Webster has an entire chapter devoted to papal succession in his book.)
More importantly, Eusebius’s point is that these heretics are ultimately disproven not on the grounds of extrabiblical tradition but on the grounds of the Divine Scriptures. Eusebius’s first line of defense is not extrabiblical tradition, but the Bible itself.
7) Based on your comments here, I think you must misunderstand the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. I do not mean that condescendingly, but sincerely. Protestants do not deny the existence of any oral tradition in the early church. But we do deny that any such extrabiblical tradition was infallibly preserved, such that it is authoritative. On the other hand, the Scriptures have been preserved. They are our final authority for assessing both the Church and Tradition.
Where the Church and Tradition fail to conform to the teachings of Scripture, we are bound to follow the Scriptures (”for we must obey God rather than men” [Acts 5:29]). The Scriptures alone are infallible, and they are sufficient “for life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3) “so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17; emphasis added).
These quotes indicate that the church fathers not only closely associated “apostolic tradition” with the New Testament, but that they appealed to the Scriptures as their highest and ultimate authority.
As Augustine said: Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books [i.e. the Scriptures] but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: Why do you want to remove these things from the midst? Because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents [like man’s tradition] but by divine oracles. (The Unity of the Church, 3; brackets mine)
Thanks,
NB
P.S. I will be offline until tomorrow. If we do not hear from you tonight or tomorrow, I hope you have a wonderful weekend. It has been a pleasure to interact with you, Gerry. I do genuinely respect you, though I believe you to be blinded by the traditions of men (Mark 7:8; Col. 2:8). Please know that I will be praying for you as you look to Christ and His perfect Word in your pursuit of the truth (Rom. 11:6; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:4-7).
Nate,
This is truly a very respectful dialogue which I appreciate very much.. Thank you for your prayers (intercession) on my behalf. I ALWAYS look to Christ and His Word and am faithful to His command in John 6:56 and to His Church (1 Tim 3:15). I will pray for you as well that you may experience Him “in the breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:35) as did the disciples on the road to Emmaus.
You said: The Scriptures alone are infallible, and they are sufficient “for life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3) “so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17; emphasis added).
I say: Yes, the Scriptures are “useful for teaching, refutation, correction and for training” but not in and of themselves..see below
2 Tim 3:16
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness
Acts 8:
30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?”
I made a point yesterday about how even Luther “the head reformer” himself was frustrated at the amount of varying doctorines that were proclaimed from the Scriptures “alone”. I also showed you via link and example how “oneness” Christians can take the same Scriptures and say there is no Trinity or how Jehova Witnesses say that Christ is a mere man (recycled Arianism). So, I ask in all sincerity, how can this be?
2 Peter 1:20:
20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.
Martin Luther:
“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet” De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.
“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.
“We concede — as we must — that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.
Have a great weekend and God bless..
Charles,
You said: In the Catholic Catechism: it reads:
“Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must ‘make satisfaction for’ or ‘expiate’ his sins. This satisfaction is also called ‘penance’” (P 1459).
Is this then saying, that the justification, or redemption, is not paid in full at the time of salvation? That there is a requirement for a full spiritual health reovery? And is that say Romans 8:1 is not correct: “There is therefore no condemnation for thsoe who are in Christ.” And justification is not an accomplished fact, but there is need to make sure justification will take place with “penance?”
I say: You happened to leave off the beginning part of the sentence and the follow up associated with it, so I’ll show you all of it…
1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.”
1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent’s personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, “provided we suffer with him.”63 (Rom 8:17, Rom 3:25, 1 John 2:1-2)
The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of “him who strengthens” us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth “fruits that befit repentance.” These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.64 (Phil 4:13, 1 Cor 1:31, 2 Cor 10:17, Gal 6:14 and Luke 3:8)
Gerry
Have I missed in these comments your background? Why did you become a Catholic? Are you a Catholic Apologetist?
Charles
Charles,
I was born a Catholic 38 yrs ago. No, I am not an apologist, but look to 1 Peter 3:15.
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”
1 Peter 3:15
As I stated in the “Mother Church” replies, I come here to clarify Catholic teaching that is so often misrepresented and maligned.
God bless.
Gerry,
I only have time to deal w/ your citation of James 2. I appreciate your being here, but that’s only about the 1,000,000,000,000th time that a Roman Catholic has tried to draw a conflict between Pauline doctrine and James’ doctrine. Don’t you think it might not be a good idea to go around trying to point out contradictions in the Bible?
FF Bruce’s commentary on Galatians 5 can prove handy:
“To seek it [justification] through faith in Christ was to seek it on the ground of God’s grace; to seek it through legal works was to seek it on the ground of their own merit…Paul has already made it clear (3:10) that those who seek justification through legal works do not attain it (cf. Rom 11:7), but rather incur the curse of the law; what he emphasizes here is the incompatibility of faith and works, of divine grace and human merit, where justification of the sinner before God is in question.
Here [5:5] is such a reference, however; by contrast with the vain hope of righteousness by legal works, he says, we who believe in Christ are enabled by the Spirit, through faith, to wait confidently for the hope of righteousness. The law holds out no such sure hope as this. The ‘hope of righteousness’ is the hope of a favourable verdict in the last judgment (Rom 2:5-16). For those who believe in Christ such a verdict is assured in advance by the present experience of justification by faith…In their case the eschatological verdict of ‘not guilty’ is already realized.”
–F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (Erdmans 1988), 231-232.
And here is a quick cut and paste of some quotes in an article dealing w/ this topic from here…
“There is no reason to assume that James was commenting on Paul. Notice that there is no reference in his epistle to Jewish/Gentile relations in the church, which is the point of departure for the Pauline doctrine.
And there is no reason to assume that James is using the word in the same specialized sense as it acquires in Pauline thought. A word is not a doctrine. The reason we have a Pauline doctrine of justification is not because Paul uses the word, but because he has laid out a detailed theological model of justification—such as you don’t find in James.
From what I can tell, James is making a much simpler point, where faith and works are equivalent to hearing and doing (1:22-25). Don’t be hearers of the word only, but doers as well. This is a common admonition in Scripture…faith is not the ground of our justification. The ground of our justification is penal substitution. Faith is merely a condition of its individual application to the sinner…sanctification is a necessary condition of salvation, but not a condition of justification.
…we’re not talking in generic terms about man’s relation to God, but in specific terms about the sinner’s relation to his Judge.”
For the purposes of this discussion, you can consider me in agreement w/ the author of that article.
My own brief commentary is this:
Paul discusses forensic justification of the dead, dirty sinner before a loving, yes, but also holy and just God in various psgs thru the NT, including Romans 2-10, most of Galatians, heavy references in Colossians, and Ephesians 1-2 (among other places). It is out of these places that the Reformation doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone has been derived. I say “Reformation doctrine” simply to give it a name and set it apart, but I will be happy to defend it from biblical exegesis.
James, by contrast, as noted above, is not discussing justification of the sinner before God.
A final note - what does James’ “justification” mean, then? It is the validation before witnesses of the faith that exists. In the case of Abraham, for example, he lifts the knife to kill Isaac and thus validates the fact that he has faith in the eyes of:
-Isaac
-Sarah his wife
-the billions who have read Genesis over the centuries
The problems of the conundrum you think I have are manifold.
1) Eph 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace, NOT by works.
Romans 3:28 says we are justified by grace apart from the works of the Law.
Romans 11:6 says that grace mixed with works is no longer grace.
Scripture thus contradicts Scripture if what you have said is true.
2) The context of the psgs out of which we derive the Pauline doctrine of justification are clearly related to justification.
The context of James 2 is not.
3) We don’t know how to be saved.
(or at least, you certainly don’t.)
Peace,
ALAN
Gerry,
Like most of Roman Catholics you conduct a brutal
I S O G E S I S with James passage talking about the works and faith.
This passage DOES NOT teaches that works are a condition of salvation. What it DOES TEACH is what a characteristic of a saving faith is.
And that is Gerry, literally an eternity of the difference…
Think about it…
Milhamah
Alan,
First off, I won’t insult you as you insulted me (I forgive you).
You said:I only have time to deal w/ your citation of James 2. I appreciate your being here, but that’s only about the 1,000,000,000,000th time that a Roman Catholic has tried to draw a conflict between Pauline doctrine and James’ doctrine. Don’t you think it might not be a good idea to go around trying to point out contradictions in the Bible?
I say: My point exactly.. Since the bible cannot contradict itself..It means BOTH and the church fathers clearly say so.
Below, I will show some of the posts Nate used from the fathers to show “faith alone” and I will also use the same father to show you the flip side..So they are saying BOTH, Not faith ONLY and Not works only.
(Here’s Nate’s example)
Augustine (354-430): If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.
(Here’s mine)
Augustine
“We are commanded to live righteously, and the reward is set before us of our meriting to live happily in eternity. But who is able to live righteously and do good works unless he has been justified by faith?” (Various Questions to Simplician 1:2:21 [A.D. 396]).
“He bestowed forgiveness; the crown he will pay out. Of forgiveness he is the donor; of the crown, he is the debtor. Why debtor? Did he receive something? . . . The Lord made himself a debtor not by receiving something but by promising something. One does not say to him, ‘Pay for what you received,’ but ‘Pay what you promised’” (Explanations of the Psalms 83:16 [A.D. 405]).
“What merits of his own has the saved to boast of when, if he were dealt with according to his merits, he would be nothing if not damned? Have the just then no merits at all? Of course they do, for they are the just. But they had no merits by which they were made just” (Letters 194:3:6 [A.D. 412]).
“What merit, then, does a man have before grace, by which he might receive grace, when our every good merit is produced in us only by grace and when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but his own gifts to us?” (ibid., 194:5:19).
Nates’s:
Irenaeus of Lyons (d. c. 200): “Through the obedience of one man [Jesus] who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation.” (Adversus Haereses)
Mine:
Irenaeus
“[Paul], an able wrestler, urges us on in the struggle for immortality, so that we may receive a crown and so that we may regard as a precious crown that which we acquire by our own struggle and which does not grow upon us spontaneously. . . . Those things which come to us spontaneously are not loved as much as those which are obtained by anxious care” (Against Heresies 4:37:7 [A.D. 189]).
Nate’s:
Ignatius of Antioch: “His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified” (Epistle to Philadelphians).
Mine:
Ignatius of Antioch
“Be pleasing to him whose soldiers you are, and whose pay you receive. May none of you be found to be a deserter. Let your baptism be your armament, your faith your helmet, your love your spear, your endurance your full suit of armor. Let your works be as your deposited withholdings, so that you may receive the back-pay which has accrued to you” (Letter to Polycarp 6:2 [A.D. 110]).
Nate’s:
Justin Martyr (d. 165) in his Dialogue with Trypho: “No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer . . . are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account.”
Mine:
Justin Martyr
“We have learned from the prophets and we hold it as true that punishments and chastisements and good rewards are distributed according to the merit of each man’s actions. Were this not the case, and were all things to happen according to the decree of fate, there would be nothing at all in our power. If fate decrees that this man is to be good and that one wicked, then neither is the former to be praised nor the latter to be blamed” (First Apology 43 [A.D. 151]).
I could go on, but I’ll stop there..
My question to you in reagrds to FF Bruce’s exposition you included in your post is…is FF Bruce “infallible”? You seem to think so. That’s why the question of “Authority” is vital..
As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.
“Sola Scriptura” as I have pointed out has sprouted so many different “gospels” it’s frightening. There is only ONE Holy Spirit, so there can only be ONE correct interpretation.
Matthew 18:
15 “If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector
Another question..If you have a disagreement with a Methodist (for example) over an issue, which “Church” would you bring it to?? Your church (I’m assuming Calvinist) or his Methodist church?? Neither would make sense since the Methodist church has no “authority” over a Calvinist and vice versa.. So Matthew is obviously speaking of “A” visible Church (One)that can settle the matter…not different churches under the “invisisble union”.
Since it seems John has concluded his teachings against the Catholic Church for now, I can be reached via e-mail at spo099@aol.com in anyone would like to continue the dialogue.
Gerry,
No insult was intended. I am sorry I came across as insulting to you.
The only place I can imagine you might be referring to is when I said “you certainly don’t (know how to be saved)”. Is that right? If so, I was making a theological conclusion and meant nothing against you but everything against Roman dogma (against whom I mean grave insult indeed).
If you are referring to the ‘contradictions in the Bible’ thing, I do not see how that is an insult either. Rather, Eph 2:8-10 is so obvious, as is Romans 4:1-8, that saving righteousness is imputed to the man who has faith and does not work over and against the Roman position that I find it simply a reflex, a reaction, on the part of the defender of Roman dogma to cite James 2. Thus, contradiction. If you have a problem w/ that, it might be a heart issue that you should check into. I will pray for that.
You did not respond to my exegesis of the Eph 2:8-10 psg, and this is probably the 4th time I’ve asked you. Please - if you answer nothing else, answer this.
To clarify the difference of “works” and “works of the Law,” Ephesians 2:8-10 clarifies the issue.
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
V.9 - not as a result of works.
V.10 - so that we do works.
There’s no difference (if we take the text w/o importing outside [Roman] authority) between the works apart from which we are saved by faith and the works we’re prepared for by Jesus.
Finally, your other question - Matt 18 deals w/ a local church setting. I can’t exactly “go to” TD Jakes and ask him to repent since I don’t live in Dallas nor go to his church so as to rebuke him for his Oneness beliefs. My responsibility is to my local body. And we do carry out church discipline.
I look forward to your response on the question on Ephesians 2.
Peace,
ALAN
Alan,
You said: No insult was intended. I am sorry I came across as insulting to you.
“you certainly don’t (know how to be saved)”. Is that right?
I say: Yes, that is what I was referring to.
You said: To clarify the difference of “works” and “works of the Law,” Ephesians 2:8-10 clarifies the issue.
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
V.9 - not as a result of works.
V.10 - so that we do works.
I say: It was not my intention to ignore your question, but as you have seen, I have had my share of questions to answer and have done so. So I apologize if you felt that I ingored it. It was not my intention.
You seem to read alot into these verses and not look at them at face value and insert you own “that we do”..let’s look again..
Verse 8: saved through faith
Verse 9: created in Christ Jesus for good works,
Looks alot like Faith AND Good works..
But Gerry,
v. 8 = saved thru faith
v. 9 = apart from works
v. 10 = so that we do works
What is the difference between the 2 “works”? It looks like the same works that we are created to do AFTER we are saved are the ones APART FROM WHICH we are saved. How did I read sthg foreign into the text?
Alan,
Again, in v. 10 you are putting in your own words (so we do) (interpretation) in instead of what it “actually says..
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
v.8= Saved through faith (we agree)
v.9= Not a RESULT of works (by themselves, we agree)
v.10= Created in Christ Jesus for GOOD WORKS
In summary..
We come TO faith without good works, but as RESULT of our Faith do good works…
Let’s look at James again (it is Scripture, right??)
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19 You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
Yes, Gerry, James is Scripture.
You say I have added “works WE DO” to v. 10. Do you believe that the works in v. 10 are NOT, then, works that people do? If they are not, whose works are they? God’s? If they are, you agree w/ me.
Given that not only do you agree w/ me (b/c a faithful Roman Catholic should), and given that you have not answered my question yet again I think it is clear to most here that you have no biblical basis for holding to justification by faith + works.
But you can still change my mind; you can start by answering the question.
Peace,
ALAN
Alan,
I have answered your question. You just seem to not like the answer.
Also, a couple of posts earlier you said:
Don’t you think it might not be a good idea to go around trying to point out contradictions in the Bible?
I say: It is only a contradiction to you. For me, James and Ephesians show once again that you cannot use one verse (according to the tradition you have been taught) and run with it. I find no contradiction in James and Ephesians since it is the Catholic positiom from scripture…
God bless..
Gerry,
OK, you don’t think it’s a contradiction. I think you are blind, but I understand. I appreciate the answer.
But the thing is, this sounds strange. You said:
v.8= Saved through faith (we agree)
v.9= Not a RESULT of works (by themselves, we agree)
v.10= Created in Christ Jesus for GOOD WORKS
In summary..
We come TO faith without good works, but as RESULT of our Faith do good works…
If we come TO faith w/o goo