A Brief Summary of Justification

Thanks, David+

I appreciate when you and Matt+ remember us average guys in the pews. I like to struggle through the more high brow discussions but the fundamentals are important to remember. They aren’t going to generate a gazillion comments but will be read and appreciated by many. My Chinese learning website (chinesepod.com) has newbie, elementary, intermediate, and advanced lessons. I think it is helpful to think of the non-church politics posts like this one insuch a fashion, and say, for example, “We haven’t had an elementary lesson for a while”, etc.

Thanks robroy.
I’m going to make an effort to post more of this stuff in the future. Appreciate the encouragement to do so.

I struggle with the concepts of justification via the imputation of Christ’s righteousness because of faith and N. T. Wright’s view that because of our belief a just God declares us righteous and thus justified. My question is if I hold one view over the other does that effect my salvation? For example, if I believe that God has declared me righteous because I believe that Christ died for my sins but the mechanism that God employees is actually imputation of Christ’s righteousness does my acceptance of the wrong mechanism ultimately have ramifications on my salvation?

They worked hard at keeping God’s holy law in an attempt to be righteous by their own works and actions.

This Protestant insistence that Jews were guilty of works-righteousness by keeping the Law is so common place that no one even thinks twice about it, but, really, how do you know what they were attempting?  Have you considered that perhaps they were expressing their love for God by keeping the holy laws He had given uniquely to them as His people?  We Christians do exactly this when we strive to live according to God’s will.  It is an outward sign of the inward grace.

Another Pilgrim, the reality that Christ died for our sins is a necessary part of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to those who trust in him rather than in their own righteousness.  The cross was the place of “the great exchange:” Christ suffered what our sins deserve, taking upon himself our unrighteousness - and his righteousness is imputed to us, our sins having been fully judged in him.

Hi LindaM,

I think most recognize that the Jews had a recognition that God’s grace is poured out into the covenant keeping community and that works of the law were not possible apart from it. Moreover, obviously, the Jews had a sense that their sins could be atoned for by Temple sacrifice—so, yes, it is fairly clear that the Pharisees, for example, would not follow a crass system of works righteousness…but I think our most authoritative source for the beliefs of 1st Century Jews, the rabbi Saul/Paul, does indicate that they believed “works of the law”—fueled by grace or not—played a role in justification.

It seems that what some in the NPP crowd (not all) want to do is reconstruct a first century Judiasm in such a way that Paul’s polemics against the idea that justification can come by works becomes non-sensical. They then go about the process of reinterpreting Paul to fit their reconstructed Judaism.

It is difficult to read Paul in any other way however than in opposition to first century Jews and/or Jewish Christians who believe that their own “lawkeeping” makes up some part of the process of being declared righteous by God.

Otherwise passages like this need to be twisted and defaced…

“15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified [1] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”

As I have grown older, it occurs to me that I can NEVER be righteous in my own will.  I am a sorry, sinful man.  But through repentance I can be forgiven and made righteous, through Jesus’ death and resurrection.

If you believe you can be righteous through your own will, then you are deceived and are not seeing the depravity of your own thoughts and actions.  That is being a “Pharisee” - someone who knows and works hard to obey the law, but who’s heart is as cold as a stone.

We must love God with all our heart, soul and mind, and love our neighbors as ourselves.  This is the foundation of a Christian life.

Lest the thread veer into talk about stereotypes, is #4 Linda M saying that not all 1st century Jews were guilty of works-righteousness, and perhaps not all Pharisees were guilty either?

My question is if I hold one view over the other does that effect my salvation? For example, if I believe that God has declared me righteous because I believe that Christ died for my sins but the mechanism that God employees is actually imputation of Christ’s righteousness does my acceptance of the wrong mechanism ultimately have ramifications on my salvation?

AnglicanXn seems to disagree, but the answer I would give is no. Salvation doesn’t require mastering every theological detail about the atonement. It is enough, as you say, to “believe that God has declared me righteous because I believe that Christ died for my sins.”

I believe very strongly in penal substitutionary atonement. I also believe very strongly in Calvin’s doctrines of grace. Today, I would consider these very much foundational in the way I see God, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel. Yet, even before I grasped any of these advanced doctrines, I was still a Christian. A young one, an immature one perhaps, but a Christian nonetheless, because in the absence of deeper understanding I had faith, and faith the size of a mustard seed is enough.

[3] Another Pilgrim, Although it’s important to think about justification and atonement, no one can plumb the depths of what happened on the cross.  When I get in my car, I have a vague idea of how the internal combustion engine works, but don’t ask me too much about how everything fits together.  I just know it works, and it gets me where I need to go.  (Please don’t take this metaphor any further, it won’t get anyone very far.) 
The sacrifice of Christ on the cross puts me in right relationship with God.  I have a number of ideas about how some of this works, but the most important thing for me to do is to come to the cross in awe and worship.  I am not saying we should not study and try to plumb the depths of this mystery.  I am saying that when we do try to plumb the depths, it should lead us deeper into awe and worship.  If you don’t have the mechanics down exactly right, no worries, because even Wright, Ould, and Kennedy would have to admit that they may not have the mechanics all hammered out.  We are saved because of Jesus’ faithfulness to the Father and to us.  If you have that down, you are doing just fine.  I hope that niether Wright, nor Ould, nor Kennedy will chastise me too harshly now.

revrj

You are absolutely right that no one can plumb the depths of the mystery of the atonement.

I do think, by the same token, humility would demand that we do not say less than has been revealed about it for fear of refusing the gift that God has given.

Moreover, obviously, the Jews had a sense that their sins could be atoned for by Temple sacrifice

I beg to differ.  They may have thought this, but no one was ever saved under the Mosaic law.  It was not designed for that.  The controlling covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant whereby salvation is to all that believe.  The atonement of Christ on the cross is a done deal.  Yes, we all believe in good works, but the minute we add works to “supplement” the work of Christ (which I believe is the principle RCC heresy)  then as Ap. Paul tells the Galatians, they have “fallen from grace” or the grace way of salvation and Christ is of no effect.  It is a destruction of the Gospel and Paul was “set for the defense of the Gospel.”  You certainly don’t need to be a theologian or even understand how it works to be saved, but rather what you are depending on and believing in that is the key. “In my hand no price I bring, but only to thy cross I cling.”  Hence all those “Sola’s” IMHO

Justification: We fell from grace by not trusting Him. We return by trusting Him.
While this sounds “easy”, trusting Him is hard work - a constant battle against self.

Well, you are not really differing with anything I wrote.

I think that there’s a great deal of confusion between “works of the law” and “good deeds” - and it all depends on which one we’re talking about when we say ‘works righteousness’

First century Jews most certainly suffered from “works righteousness” if we’re talking about “works of the law” (e.g., circumcision, animal sacrifice, tithing, dietary laws, etc).

The more common usage of “works righteousness” is that you can “earn” your way to heaven by being a good person… or that there is some balancing scale between good and evil works that you do and heaven/hell ride that balance. This is in no way a “Catholic” belief (though many mistakenly associate it as such), but it is quite a common error across all denominations/religions. I’m sure that some Jews suffered from it, but it wasn’t a characteristic of their theology the way that “works of the law” was.

Misunderstanding the difference causes many (including Luther) to think that James contradicts Paul… when in reality he just contradicts Luther (no offense intended).

Participants in this interesting discussion might want to go a step further and read my article—

“Austin Farrer on Justification and Sanctification.” The Anglican Digest 49, no. 1 (2007): 51–54.

It talks about standard Protestant and Roman Catholic views of justification, grace, etc., and then sets forth Farrer’s fascinating approach to the subject. It might be online; I don’t know.

David,

I still get a kick out of the Cliff’s Notes (i.e., wikipedia) version of his story:

he… found the divisions within the Baptist church dispiriting and whilst at university, became an Anglican

Positive,

Yes. One of the interesting things about Farrer is that he was an Anglo-Catholic with a strong Protestant bent, reflected not only in his devotion to effective preaching but also in his stress on the doctrine of justification.

But closer to your immediate point—I often wonder what Farrer would make of Anglicanism today, including its divisions.

Btw, Ed Henderson and I are working on a new book that will include a good chapter (by Ed) on Farrer. There’s been a pretty strong revival of Farrer interest since his centenary. Good to see.

Matt, certainly we should say as much as we can glean from the witness of scripture.  At the same time, in an attempt to answer Another Pilgrim’s question, I do not think it necessary to have all of the mechanics in order for salvation.  And, there is honest disagreement between faithful theologians about what exactly is meant by justification, righteousness, etc. in the New Testament.  I think part of the reason that faithful scholars can disagree is because it is so large.  Again, that is not to say that we should not try to understand more deeply and fully.  It is just a word of comfort to those, like Another Pilgrim, and myself quite frankly, that we don’t have to fully understand the cross and the work of Christ to be saved.  How, for example, do the historical and eschatological trial of Jesus inter-relate and overlap.  There are some obvious answers.  But if I require everyone to come to terms with Calvin’s “Institutes”, Wright’s “Jesus and the Victory of God” and Moltman’s “The Crucified God” and make a decision on which part of each picture of justification is correct, then we’ll have a bit of difficulty getting people into the kingdom.

“I do not think it necessary to have all of the mechanics in order for salvation.”

Definitely agree with you about that.

How about drawing on the Homily?  (The third one in the first book, I think.)  Put it in modern English, and it’s quite nice in laying out the basics.  Plus, it’s the only homily incorporated by reference in the 39 Articles.

LDW, I was not disagreeing with Another Pilgrim.  AP said

I believe that God has declared me righteous because I believe that Christ died for my sins but the mechanism that God employees is actually imputation of Christ’s righteousness does my acceptance of the wrong mechanism ultimately have ramifications on my salvation?

My reply is that the two views he thinks are differing, perhaps even opposing, are actually congruent, and are both part of a biblical view of what happened at the cross.

Of course, one does not need to have the theology of the atonement down cold in order to benefit from the atonement - one must trust Christ, not a theological position.

Dr Roger Nicole, of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a Reformed theologian, said that Scripture uses four metaphors for what went on at the cross - and somewhere in my old notes, I have those four metaphors, but alas, I do not remember.  I do recall the language of the law court, the language of the slave market, and (I think) the language of the physician, but I cannot recall more.  But in any event, the cross was such a huge event that no one thing can capture all it did for us.  God’s love is simply so huge that, while we can and must seek to understand, we are too limited to grasp it in its entirety.

Hi PP,

I think I disagree but I am not sure.

Are you suggesting that the term “works of the Law” for first century Jews was exclusively tied to things like circumcision and the ceremonial laws?

Would you not agree that “works of the law” would also include things like—faithfulness to the ten commandments?

I think it is difficult to understand Romans 1-3 otherwise.

I thank you all very much for your answers. One of the reasons that I brought this up was that John Piper’s refutation of N.T. Wright’s views on Justification seems to suggest that our salvation may be at stake if we accept Bishop Wright’s view of justification. I have a great amount of respect for both men but I don’t understand Piper’s indignation concerning Wright’s point of view. This seems to be one of those disputable matters that Paul told us to be weary of lest it mar the unity of believers.  That I am justified before Almighty God is what seems most important to me.  Whether my righteousness is imputed to me from Christ’s righteousness because God graced me with belief or that God deemed me just because of that same belief seems to be more of a simulating mental exercise in the workings and nature of God. That we can grasp the topic and debate it is a blessing of understanding from our Lord.

Matt,

I’d say yes… it looks like we probably disagree.

Yes, I think that “erga nomou” refers specifically to the legalistic observances and would not refer to the ten commandments (which is not to say that observing them causes salvation). I’d say that some modern christians have a similar affliction (assuming that all is well since “I have been baptised”)

I wouldn’t say that Romans 1-3 becomes murkier for this reading… it seems (to me) to be clearer. Note the variation between “law” and “works of law”. Note also that some of the context includes Paul’s correction of Jews who placed their faith in circumcision.

This is awesome!  Thanks for taking the time to post this.

The question of the exact beliefs of the Pharisees is an interesting one and is certainly worked over by Dunn, Sanders and Wright.

However I, along with Matt, think that Paul speaks pretty clearly about what he used to believe:

Galatians 2:15 “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Philippians 3:6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. 7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

In those 2 texts he speaks first more generally as a Jew and then specifically as a Pharisee. In both contexts he expresses a repudiation of a former belief that righteousness was achieved by adherence to the Law.

As for whether the New Perspective is a gospel issue. I think I am with Piper in his concern that Wright is in grave danger of so distorting our understanding of Paul’s view of individual justification that it ends up denying the key gospel messages of what Christ has done for us. The active and passive obedience of Christ on our behalf is a vital truth. To not understand it fully is not an impediment to salvation - but to deny it surely might just be?

Hi PP,

The reason I bring up Rom 1-3 is because it is in those three chapters that Paul builds a case against humanity in general—both Jew and Gentile—showing in the summation in Rom 3:10-20, that,

“by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Rom 3:20)

I don’t think it credible, given the context, to suggest that that use of “works of the law” is circumscribed to circumcision and ceremonial observance.

Just to flesh this out a bit, if “works of the law” only carries that narrow meaning you suggest above then this section of Romans 2 makes no sense:

“12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when,  according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

I find it simply incredible to suggest that the lawkeeping to which Paul refers here is the law of circumcision or ceremonial observance. That is, precisely, the works of the law that the Gentiles did NOT observe. The only sort of lawkeeping that makes sense in this context is the moral lawkeeping…the same sort that Paul condemns the Jews for breaking in the first section of chapter 2.

This is one of the things that I don’t understand. I don’t perceive that Wright is denying the a key piece of the Gospel message. I am admittedly a neophyte in this discussion but I glean from my reading that (in the realm of salvation and justification, he is not denying the Gospel, he is simply interpreting (or misinterpreting depending on your point of view) the mechanics behind it. I have never read where Bishop Wright states that salvation by faith is anything other than what it is. As I understand things, the key component of the Gospel is that Christ died as a sacrifice to atone for mankind’s sins and that all who believe in Christ’s death and resurrection become the adopted children of God. Our belief is God given and not of our own doing so that we can not say that we earned it by our actions. Is there more to it than this? Keep in mind that I am not arguing for or against the new perspective. My comments and questions are confined to the subject of Justification and whether it is by imputation of Christ’s righteousness or by being declared righteous by a God who is a perfect judge.

Hi Another Pilgrim,

I don’t think anyone is saying +Wright is proclaiming “another gospel”. My reading of Piper is that he is concerned that the trajectory of +Wright’s thinking on Justification could end up there ultimately, but not that he is there now.

Second, you write:

“My comments and questions are confined to the subject of Justification and whether it is by imputation of Christ’s righteousness or by being declared righteous by a God who is a perfect judge.”

For those who take the Reformed view like Piper this is something of a false dichotomy.

God’s declaration that we are righteous is based and grounded upon the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

I am reformed in the vein of R. C. Sproul and J. I. Packer but Wright’s books have made me think about things and look in to some of my beliefs a little deeper. When I have questions I tend to come here and wait for the opportunity to ask for there are many fine theological minds at SF for me to inquire of. This is one of the few places where different views can be shared and questions asked without Biblical War breaking out

OK, I’m probably going to regret this but because the Catholic position is so astronomically mis-understood and, because, this thread is currently a Calvinism love fest, I’m going to risk articulating another POV.

A few notes:

I’m not looking for an argument. I come in peace!
I am looking to provide food for thought.
I am not looking to persuade, only describe.

After all, most Christians prior to Calvin held a different view to justification.  (I accept I’m treading on a minefield here.  Indeed, the vast majority of Christian worldwide – the Orthodox, Coptic and Catholic just for starters, along with the Methodists and various other Protestant denominations do NOT support Justification by faith alone.  Justification by Faith alone is arguably the most passionately held view of classic Protestantism.) 

So here’s my starter.

Firstly, the Catholic Church does NOT to justification by works alone.
Neither does the Catholic Church hold that a man justifies himself before God by his works.  These are common misconceptions.  (But often rigidly held!)

Indeed, the Catholic Church actually holds to a form of justification by faith alone!

Those who come to Christ initially are justified initially by their faith alone.  Any good works are irrelevant in obtaining salvation.  (I saw an evangelical’s eyes widen when I told him that.)

A man cannot earn his way into Heaven.

Entry into heaven is by God’s Grace.

The real difference comes into being after initial justification.
The Christina must then persevere in the Faith. He must not apostatise.  He has to become refined by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Imputed justification is not enough. Christ’s Holiness must be infused into the Christian.  They must become Holy as the Father is Holy.  But this is done by God – not the Christian’s own power.

Does this mean the Christian does good under his own power?  Not at all.  Only God is good. It is the renewing power of the Holy Spirit that works in the Christian and enables him to do good.
However, that Grace can be refused!!  The Christian can work against the Holy spirit. He can resist.  This is, in my mind, the key difference between Catholicism and Calvinism.  Calvin had no room for free will at all.  Neither, frankly did Luther.  “Bondage of the Will” was his favourite work.  Catholicism holds that mankind has limited free will. Mani s not free to do good from his own power – being fallen.  But He can do good through the power of the Holy Spirit working in him.  He can also resist the will of the Holy Spirit to do that work.  Man can choose evil. Hell is freely chosen.

In Catholicism there is room for a limited notion of free will.

Anyway, man’s good works DO count in terms of justification.  For the Catholic Justification and Sanctification are not separated.  The justified do good works and by their works they work with the Holy spirit making them fit for Heaven.  We do not EARN our way into Heave by brownie points.  Instead, works are part of our walk with God. The Christian who has no good works has, in essence, apostatised.  Their Christianity is nothing more than a label. Which is why justification by faith alone does not work.  Because a Christian ca make a profession of faith – and mean it – but then, say, sleep around, get into drugs, get into crime and make a waste of their life.  Will such faith save them?  Frankly, I say scripture is darn clear about this!

Also, I would like to point out that the notion of Justification by Faith alone is totally unheard of in Church history prior to Luther, with the possible exception of the very, very early Church where James very firmly squashes the idea!

Those who covert at the point of death may enter Heaven entirely by faith.
But the rest of us who accept the call must walk the walk.  We must become Holy as the Father is Holy.  But God does this work in us.  It is not by our own power! It is entirely Grace.  But we can refuse the Grace.  We can resist and God will respect that.

This, to my mind makes perfect sense of scripture. It reconciles Paul and James.  It makes sense of everything Jesus said about judgement – which is almost all about acts of love.  I makes sense of the beatitudes.  It makes sense of Jesus’ plea for love in Gethsemane and, on top of all that, it makes sense of Paul’s Hymn to live in Corinthians 13 in which Paul says “the greatest of these is love” and not faith.

Faith will start you on the journey.  But love must be part of the walk.  Those with the faith to cast out demons will yet be told “Away!  I never knew you!”

I come in peace!  You can ignore this completely.  This is Matt’s blog.  Obviously, on an laregly evangelical Protestant blog you’d expect reformed evangelical theology.  I just thought I’d add a little flavour to the discussion.

On a completely unrelated note. I’m in love with Belldandy. 

I don’t know about Methodism as an entity, but John Wesley certainly believed in justification by faith. See this (abridged and modernized in language) sermon: http://theconnexion.net/wp/?p=3142 His conviction of the truth of the doctrine was the cause of his spiritual awakening.

jedinovice, I thank you for your contribution.  When it comes down to it, I haven’t met a single Calvinist, Free-Will Baptist, Anglican or Eastern Orthodox that couldn’t agree that faith, good works, love and striving for holy living are intrinsically connected, even if they disagree about the metaphysical details that frankly are above my head and have very little impact of my day-to-day life.

However, it seems to me that aside for the issues that you mention, the biggest difference between Calvinism and Catholicism re: the notion of salvation is the doctrine of purgatory, especially as the predominantly atheist or Protestant historians of the medieval and early modern period portray it.  For better or for worse, most Protestants are under the impression that Catholics think that their works (a category which many memorialists would say includes the Catholic concept of the sacraments) and such things as indulgences are what lessens their time in the fires of purgatory and gets them to heaven quicker.  I don’t claim to be informed enough about Roman Catholic faith and practice to be able to evaluate how accurate this is.

^^^

For the record, no Christian denies Justification by faith.
The question is, under normal circumstance (we’re not talking deathbead) is Justification purely by Faith at all times?

This links into OSAS.

Anyway, man’s good works DO count in terms of justification.  For the Catholic Justification and Sanctification are not separated.  The justified do good works and by their works they work with the Holy spirit making them fit for Heaven.  We do not EARN our way into Heave by brownie points.  Instead, works are part of our walk with God. The Christian who has no good works has, in essence, apostatised.  Their Christianity is nothing more than a label. Which is why justification by faith alone does not work.  Because a Christian ca make a profession of faith – and mean it – but then, say, sleep around, get into drugs, get into crime and make a waste of their life.  Will such faith save them?  Frankly, I say scripture is darn clear about this!

The Protestant would look at this from a different angle. A complete and utter absence of good works would mean, not that a person had apostasized, but that he never had saving faith at all, and thus had never been justified. He may have sincerely “made a profession of faith”, but it was not in the Christian faith, rightly understood.

[32] jedinovice

this thread is currently a Calvinism love fest

Calvinists do not have ‘love fests.’  We are serious, and stern, and think seats in church should be decidedly hard and uncomfortable.  We regard amusement with disdain, and consider any expression of mirth to be a suspicious indicator of latent Arminianism.  Our favorite color is dark, and our favorite Book is Lamentations.  Or perhaps Job.  We may entreat, exhort, expound, exegete, edify, or enlighten, but we do not ‘fest.’ 

Huffily, and with a sufficiently severe expression
carl

Hi jedinovice,

No time this morning to address your larger post but thank you and I hope others do.

I did want to say that I believe (and please, Methodists, correct me if I am wrong) orthodox Methodists do subscribe to all five solas of the Reformation including sola fide.

The criticism of Methodists by Calvinists tends to say that while they embrace Sola Fide doctrinally they deny it functionally when they accept the possibility of losing salvation for example

“However, it seems to me that aside for the issues that you mention, the biggest difference between Calvinism and Catholicism re: the notion of salvation is the doctrine of purgatory, especially as the predominantly atheist or Protestant historians of the medieval and early modern period portray it.  For better or for worse, most Protestants are under the impression that Catholics think that their works (a category which many memorialists would say includes the Catholic concept of the sacraments) and such things as indulgences are what lessens their time in the fires of purgatory and gets them to heaven quicker.  I don’t claim to be informed enough about Roman Catholic faith and practice to be able to evaluate how accurate this is.”

OK, I’ll take this as a question and Endeavour to answer it to the best of my ability.

BTW, it took me a while to get a grip on purgatory but as I understood infused Justification it made perfect sense.

Purgatory is completely logical if one holds that God is Holy.  In scripture no-one could look upon God’s faith (save in the form of Jesus) and live.  No man was Holy enough, not even the Great Prophets.

So if that which is not Holy can not look upon God, and man must be Holy to face God - which is Heaven - then man must be made Holy. Given that 99,975733333 (reoccurring) of us are not perfectly holy when we die then we must be made Holy before we can face God.  Purgatory is the continuation of that process.

Most Protestants hold to that notion - that we are transformed to be Holy when we die and can enter Heaven.  This ‘regeneration’ at death is instantaneous in Protestant thinking.  For the catholic it involves some time depending on the level of perfection made on Earth.  But the concept is effectively the same.

The reason for belief in a time element in Catholic thinking is twofold:

1)  In the Catholic Tradition God is a respecter of free will and so there is room for the individual to co-operate in the refining process on Earth so why not after death?
and,

2) more importantly, it makes God’s justice.  Those great sinners who died but died in Faith will yet enter Heaven, but God’s justice requires not punishment as such, but that they face their sins and are purified in purgatory as those who held the faith and persevered on Earth made progress.

Otherwise, I would argue, the great sinner gets off lightly and the great saint has no benefit.  (One can argue about rewards in Heaven I will grant.)

For the record, Purgatory is NOT a substitute for Heaven or Hell. It is simply a place (or a means, it’s not clear) of final purifying for those bound for Heaven. 

But that’s an overview of purgatory.

I’m not big on indulgences. As I understand it, the use of Indulgences is roughly the Churches authority to forgive sin in God’s name but only while on Earth. After death judgment is in God’s hands and nothing more can be done.  However, prayers for those in purgatory is regarded as an extension of the relationship of those who pray for others on Earth.  But we don’t really know what goes on at that point.  After death - it’s in God’s hands.

As a note, ‘the fires of purgatory’ is simply a historical description that does not match the Churches teaching.  Purgatory is mainly supposed to be a joyful place.  Those who in purgatory are to see god’s face and enter Heaven.

After death, no amount of prayer or whatever can change God’s judgment on someone’s path from Heaven or Hell.

There is a very interesting account in Bede’s ecclesiastical history of England of a man who died but then rose again who then entered the cloistered life.  To a few, just a few, the man told what happened to him after his death. In it he is taken by an angel to the pit of hell – but not inside, through a valley in which the souls who embraced God at death were entering in and out of fire and ice as they were purified, and into a wonderful city full of light and happy people – both of which were purgatory.  He was also taken to the entrance to heaven but could not enter.
It’s a long story but well worth reading.  Bede’s history is riveting!  Of course, private revelation is suspect, but Bede is well regarded as a historian.

Does that help?

Carl – LOL!

Class! 

Matt, many thanks for your kind words.  Much appreciated.

I have a great heart for Christian unity.  I love it when Christians are kind to each other, even where we differ.

Now, back to dreaming about Belldandy…

Purgatory is a place where a man undergoes satispassio - “the suffering of atonement” - in order to atone for his temporal sins so that he might stand in God’s presence. 

The temporal punishments for sins are atoned for in the purifying fire by the so-called suffering of atonement (satispassio), that is, by the willing bearing of the expiatory punishments imposed by God

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 485.

A man bears this atonement himself.  It does not depend upon the work of Christ.  Purgatory therefore denies the sufficiency of the Cross.

carl

re 32, “Firstly, the Catholic Church does NOT to justification by works alone.”  There’s a word missing here..not sure what you intend.

Sorry.  I’m dreadful at that sort of thing.  I’m alwasy missing out words and just can’t see the omissions!!

I’ll correct.  “Firstly, the Catholic Church does NOT hold to justification by works alone.”

That help?

>A man bears this atonement himself.  It does not depend upon the work of Christ.  Purgatory therefore denies the sufficiency of the Cross.

Not at all.  The just punishment for our sin is death.  To deny the sufficiency of the cross would be to say that the man saves himself from Hell.

A man who is faced with the consequenes of his sin WITHOUT the just punishment of Hell is saved by the cross.  It is the cross that stands between us and Hell.

But purgatory is God’s justice to those who have been saved by Grace but yet have not attained Holiness before meeting God.

The cross does not stop us carrying our cross.

thanks..that’s what i assumed but didn’t want to assume.

^^^
No worries.  I am the world’s worst proof reader!

thank you jedinovice for your lengthy explanation. I really appreciated the clarity and distinctions that were laid out and also your honesty is making plain statements of a type that shows us that certain positions understood of the RC Church are not stereotypes but actually true (even if not completely understood).

I’ll leave it to others to disagree with you (not that I don’t, but I just wanted to post my gratitude at this point).

The criticism of Methodists by Calvinists tends to say that while they embrace Sola Fide doctrinally they deny it functionally when they accept the possibility of losing salvation for example

Now I’m really stretching, because I really haven’t studied Methodists, but my understanding is that is is not such much a denial of Sola Fide but denial of the Calvanist understanding of Election.  One is saved through Fide, but if one looses Fide one looses salvation.  They would say that one can choose to follow Christ and can subsequently choose to abandon Christ.  They would say that while God has promised He never will foresake you, he never promised that you won’t forsake Him.  The Calvanist would say that such an abandonment of faith was sign that they never were Elect to begin with.  The General Baptist would say that one can choose to be Born Again but once one is Born Again one is ontologically transformed and can’t loose salvation.  If someone subsequently rejects the Faith, they clearly weren’t Born Again to begin with.

Excellent thread.  Thanks so much, Jedinovic, for your contributions.

[48] AndrewA

They would say that while God has promised He never will foresake you, he never promised that you won’t forsake Him.

Well, except for here.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. John 6:37-39

And here:

The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.”  John 10:2-5

carl

Here’s my favorite promise, and one I pray and cling to:
“Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling,
And to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty,
Dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”
Jude 24-25

#41,

A man bears this atonement himself.  It does not depend upon the work of Christ.

Sure carl… that would deny the sufficiency of Christ… and any similar straw men would as well. But that isn’t their position. A man bears the process (or results) of atonement himself. He is most certainly dependent on Christ.

Matt,

I admit that Rom 2:15 causes the most problems for the position… but it isn’t much comparison to the problems Luther’s position has with James.

It also causes no more problems than 2:13-14 cause for a classic protestant position. We’re left believing that Paul is speaking of a hypothetical that doesn’t actually exist.

and any similar straw men would as well

Splitting metaphysical hairs and arguments against strawmen seem to consitutute a large portion of Protestant/Catholic discussion.  This blog and this thread is better than most, because most of the people here are at fairly thoughtful and at least somewhat informed on engaging theological issues.  But one doesn’t have to look far to see someone that says that “Catholics think you can do whatever you want as long as you go to confession” or “Baptists think you can do whatever you want as long as you are Born Again.”

Faith = Justification + Good works
Faith + Good Works does not = Justification

Like Abraham, the paradigmatic convert, He believed God and it was credited to Him as righteousness. (Gen 15:6, Romans 4, Galatians 3). Did this crediting come in payment for or as a result of works - No!  (Romans 4:4-8) Did it come after circumcision? - No! (Romans 4:9-12)

If you are regenerate you will naturally do good works because the Spirit of God now lives in you.  However, these good works are a result, not a cause of justification.

Galatians 3:2-7   2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?  3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?  4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?  5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?  6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.  7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

Splitting metaphysical hairs and arguments against strawmen seem to consitutute a large portion of Protestant/Catholic discussion.

Absolutely true. That’s why it’s best not to tell the other side what they believe before knocking it down. It makes us seem like we can’t deal with their actual positions (and thus fails to pursuade). I should note that this hasn’t been my impression of carl. Many are honestly persuaded that these are RC positions.

I like to refer to it as a divorce, where ex spouses invent (and often honestly believe) things about each other.

But one doesn’t have to look far to see someone that says that “Catholics think you can do whatever you want as long as you go to confession” or “Baptists think you can do whatever you want as long as you are Born Again.”

And one doesn’t have to look far to discover people who actually hold both of those positions (like the guy who killed four people in a gym last week who said that he was ready to meet Jesus because his works don’t matter)... which makes the straw men easier to build and harder to falsify for both sides… but they are corruptions of actual doctrines.

For a shorthand summary, I like that webdec.

I’ll take it a step further than “these good works are a result, not a cause of justification.”

I’d say that “good works” aren’t even possible apart from a saving faith - because our own actions are in no meaningful way “good” on our own. An illustration that I’ve appreciated is that of a family pet vs. a child (and I may bring down the wrath of Sarah). A dog may be obedient and fetch the paper, but he has earned no one drop of sonship. The child who performs the same action out of love for his father is living out his sonship and responding to his father’s love.

Apart from Christ, we are not children… we are merely creatures… and there’s nothing we can do to change that. Upon adoption we become heirs of God and everything changes.

[27] David, I am not sure where Wright has denied the active and passive obedience of Christ on our behalf, or, indeed, even where it might be implied that he has.

Can Faith be seperated from Faithfulness?

Just for the sake of prompting discussion, where does Love and Obedience fit into the whole Faith/Works discussion?

15"If you love me, you will obey what I command.

John 14:21 (New International Version)
21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”

23Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

Matthew 19:17 (New International Version)
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

AndrewA,

I’d say no… and I’d say that this is James’ point. It’s a shame that greek didn’t allow for punctuation like quotations marks or html formatting.

can that “faith” save him?

Would have made things so much simpler.

It’s a shame that greek didn’t allow for punctuation like quotations marks or html formatting.

Indeed, and it is also too bad that the inerrant Word of God didn’t come complete with Inerrant Footnotes, Inerrant FAQ’s, an Inerrant Glossary and even some Inerrant diagrams and pictures for those of us who are still confused.

Hi AndrewA,

“Indeed, and it is also too bad that the inerrant Word of God didn’t come complete with Inerrant Footnotes, Inerrant FAQ’s, an Inerrant Glossary and even some Inerrant diagrams and pictures for those of us who are still confused.”

but there’s an inerrant reason for that…

“‘Keep on hearing, [3] but do not understand;
keep on seeing, [4] but do not perceive.’
10 Make the heart of this people dull, [5]
and their ears heavy,
and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”

“...too bad that the inerrant Word of God didn’t come complete with Inerrant Footnotes, Inerrant FAQ’s, an Inerrant Glossary and even some Inerrant diagrams and pictures for those of us who are still confused.”

That’s what the Holy Spirit is for.  He is the interpreter, guide, and confirms or reinforces, draws you into the unified mind of Christ and His Church.

If you are being drawn away from Christ and the Church of the ages, you are not being led by THE HOLY Spirit, but a false spirit.

This is what differentiates Shori, Spong and the General Convention company from the real Church and the Real HOLY Spirit…they are moving *away from* the unity of the Spirit, the mind of Christ and His Church.

That’s what the Holy Spirit is for.  He is the interpreter, guide, and confirms or reinforces, draws you into the unified mind of Christ and His Church.

It should have been clear that my comments were half joking, but what’s half educated layman like me to do about the areas on which the mind of His Church is NOT unified, like the difference betweeen NT Wright and Matt Kennedy on the proper understanding of Paul, or betweeen Calvanist and Arminian, Lutheran and Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian, Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical, Greek and Roman, etc…  And, of course, as soon as I ask such a question, everyone will respond “Well of course a clear reading of Scripture obviously supports MY understanding!”

Okay, so I went back to read Piper on Wright.  I generally like Piper, but I have to say that his criticism of Wright was way beneath Piper’s usual quality.  He pulls direct quotes from Wright to make Wright say something Wright never said.  I had to pull out Wright’s book on Paul in New Perspective to check for myself.  Wright does say, “Justification is not about ‘how I get saved’ but ‘how I am declared to be a member of God’s people’.”  This sounds a great deal like KJS in her opening talk to General Convention.  However, if you read the whole chapter “Reworking God’s People” it becomes clear that what Wright is saying is that justification in not ONLY about individual salvation.  Rather, we are saved for a purpose, which is to reveal God’s faithfulness to His covenant.  Wrtight also says that one thing that belonging to the covenant meas is “forgiven sinner”. 
At one point Piper pulls the quote “‘The gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is . . . the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ.” 
In the same article Wright cleary says, ” his gospel, not as a message about how individuals get saved from sin and death, though that is of course taken for granted,”
The dangerous thing is not what Wright says, but that people will read Piper on Wright and think that they have an accurate representation of what Wright says.

Imputed justification is not enough. Christ’s Holiness must be infused into the Christian.  They must become Holy as the Father is Holy.  But this is done by God – not the Christian’s own power.

The WCF, on the relationship between works and faith:

WCF:  XVI.II

II. These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

John3v3

While it is no doubt correct that this is the Spirit’s role, that doesn’t mean that we’re guaranteed to be any better at listening than we are at interpreting Scripture. There are far too many faithful Christians coming up with far too many interpretations for that to be a guarantee.

IOW, good works are the fruit of the saving-faith, and are inseparable from the saving-faith, but have no (i.e, none, nada) purchasing power as far as salvation is concerned.

[64] Andrew A, well said.  What should be striking is not how far apart the Baptists, the Catholics, the Methodists, etc. are, but how close they are when you sit down and start defining the way they use terms.  If they are faithful to their traditions, they will all say, “Christ died for my sins,” or something that means substantailly the same thing as that.  Where the disagreement comes, among the faithful, is when you say something like, “I am saved by faith alone.”  The Baptist will say “Yes, you’ve got it!” The Catholic will say, “But faith without works is dead!?”  If you then say to the Baptist, “Will faith make a difference in your life?”  He will respond, “Yes, brother, it will make a huge difference.”  At that point the Catholic will say, “That’s what I’ve been saying.”  The Baptist will then say, “But it’s not the change that saves me,” and the discussion will continue…

hi revrj

I think you’ve misread Piper and unintentionally misrepresented him. Wright has responded (and I think inadequately now that I’ve gotten a glimpse of the book…but not read the whole thing) but one thing he does not do is claim that Piper pulls quotes out of context in the way you suggest he has. I have read Piper’s book thoroughly and I have read Wright’s stuff on Paul and I do not at all think that Piper has done what you suggest. He may misunderstand Wright (I don’t think he does) but he certainly does not treat him unfairly.

“if you read the whole chapter “Reworking God’s People” it becomes clear that what Wright is saying is that justification in not ONLY about individual salvation.  Rather, we are saved for a purpose, which is to reveal God’s faithfulness to His covenant.  Wrtight also says that one thing that belonging to the covenant meas is “forgiven sinner”.

Have you read the entire Piper book? Piper no where charges NT Wright with suggesting a mere corporate salvation. I am thinking you may have read only part of a passage and come away with that impression.

Moreover the clarifications you make here:

“At one point Piper pulls the quote “‘The gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is . . . the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ.”
In the same article Wright cleary says, ” his gospel, not as a message about how individuals get saved from sin and death, though that is of course taken for granted,”

Are made throughout Piper’s book by Piper himself.

So your conclusion:
“The dangerous thing is not what Wright says, but that people will read Piper on Wright and think that they have an accurate representation of what Wright says.”

is unwarranted.

OK, I gotta head out for the evening now.  So I won’t be posting until tomorrow.

But I’ll stir the pot one more time!  In light humour I assure you!

” Andrew A, well said.  What should be striking is not how far apart the Baptists, the Catholics, the Methodists, etc. are, but how close they are when you sit down and start defining the way they use terms.  If they are faithful to their traditions, they will all say, “Christ died for my sins,” or something that means substantailly the same thing as that.  Where the disagreement comes, among the faithful, is when you say something like, “I am saved by faith alone.”  The Baptist will say “Yes, you’ve got it!” The Catholic will say, “But faith without works is dead!?”  If you then say to the Baptist, “Will faith make a difference in your life?”  He will respond, “Yes, brother, it will make a huge difference.”  At that point the Catholic will say, “That’s what I’ve been saying.”  The Baptist will then say, “But it’s not the change that saves me,” and the discussion will continue…”

Amen Brother!  In practical terms there is very little between Protestants and Catholics.  So little that the join statement on justification between Catholics and Lutherns could be signed.  And in both camps, faith comes first.  On neither case does one work their way into Heaven.  And the debts I own Protestants on my Christian journey are heavy indeed.

However, with a wry smile, I’ll ask just one question…

If the heart of the Gospel (or at least the major part of it) is justification by faith alone, if this was the gift of Jesus then, and I ask in all seriousness but not looking for a fight…  How come no Christian post Paul seemed to believe it?  Why dot he Church fathers, the Bishops, all Church writings make absolutely no reference to Sola Fide?

I mean, sure, we can say “Scripture trumps Tradition. I don’t go by the Church Fathers, I go by the Word of God.”  Fine. I’m not arguing that point.  What I’m asking, “Sure, fine, Sola Scriptura, OK.  But if the word of God is so obvious in this respect and Sola Fide is the Gospel, in essence, then how come Christianity carried on for about 1,400 at least with apparently no notion of the concept?”  You don’t have to accept Tradition as an authority to ask “How come everyone missed the true and clear teaching of scripture?”
How did everyone miss the heart of the Gospel?  Were there no Christians prior to the Reformation?

I won’t contest any answer.  I’m not here to cause a fight.  I’m not trying to win converts for Rome here.  It’s just a question I’ve never seen answered with anything other than “The word of God says justification by faith alone and that’s good enough for me” in essence.  I kinda think that ducks the issue. I always see the proof texts for Sola Fide from Romans but I never see anyone justify the doctrine from the record of history. I do see that appeal to history when it comes to *shudder* gay rights.

Any thoughts?

Pot stirred.  Cat having fun with the chickens.  My work done, I’m leaving for now!
God bless one and all.

Were there no Christians prior to the Reformation?

Were there no Christians prior to St. Augustine?

If anyone is interested in what the RCC says about the solas, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) wrote the following:

<blockquote>I don’t think it’s so easy to say what it is, and you certainly can’t make it all dependent on one single point. Although the categorical dividing into either-or is indeed deeply rooted in Protestantism. In Lutheran thinking, at any rate, the principle solus Christus—Christ alone—is very strongly emphasized, whereas for Catholicism the attempt at a synthesis was more typical. But we should beware of any schematic definition of this difference, above all because Protestantism exists in great variety of forms and because, when it comes down to it, the Catholic Church also has a wealth of different forms—and, over and beyond this, is confronting a range of historical possibilities that are still far from exhausted.

It is of course true that the Catholic Church has always rejected certain sola formulae—for instance, that only Scripture counts. The Catholic Church believes that Scripture and a living tradition belong together, since it is tradition that is the agent in providing the Scriptures and the agent when the Church interprets them. Another point is that she only allows the sola fide in a limited sense. In the sense, that is, that faith is in the first instance the only door by which grace can reach us, but that this faith, as the Letter to the Galatians says, is actively at work in love. The power of justification of the Christian life thus consists in an amalgam of faith and love. So here, too, the sola must be broken open.<blockquote>

King E,
Thanks for this.  I’ve always found much good sense in Cardinal Ratzinger’s/Benedict XVII’s writings.  I’ve just begun reading his “Introduction to Christianity” and will be interested to see how he addresses these matters.

[70] Matt, you are correct, I have not read Piper’s entire book.  I was referring to this interview http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/825_interview_with_piper_on_wright_pt_4/ in which Piper pulled the quotes that make Wright say things that Wright did not intend to say. 
I will give Piper the benefit of the doubt regarding his book until I have a chance to read the whole thing. 
It may be that the interviewer wanted to create a greater gulf than there is, and so edited Piper.  If you read the interview, I think you would agree that it presents an unfair picture of Wright.  Again, the book may not. 
I think that part of what is happening between Piper and Wright is the same thing that is happening between the Baptist and the Catholic above.  Piper often seems to be aksing the question, “What must I do to be saved?” which is an important question.  Wright seems to be asking the question, “What do we do now that we have been saved?” which is also an important question.  But I will have to read the whole Piper book before I can come to that conclusion.

You are very welcome Evan Miller.  FYI, after reading “Introduction to Christianity,” Pope Paul VI ordained Ratzinger a bishop.

A good work to read on the Catholic teaching on Justification is Cardinal Journet’s book “The New Life of Grace.”  The book is pretty much one of the foundational works of the new Benedictine movement brewing in Rome these days.  Journet believed any synthesis on Grace, Justification, and Sanctification must be Trinitarian:
“When you bring into a room a source of light, it illuminates the walls; so, when the divine Persons come to us (here we have the source, uncreated grace), they illuminate the walls of the soul (here we have the effect, created grace). And if you possess grace, then the source of grace, the three divine Persons, is there too. … The uncreated Spirit is given in created grace, as the sun is given in its rays. The uncreated Gift of the Spirit and the created gift of grace are simultaneous. (The Meaning of Grace [1962], p. 14)”

What do you think?

Were there no Christians prior to the Reformation?

No doubt you will get some very intelligent and affirmative answers to that question that remain true to the Reformed Protestant understanding that seems to dominate this blog, however I will simply note that one of my frustrations with the denomination I grew up in (Southern Baptist) is that many of the laity would say that Roman Catholics aren’t Christian, but instead are analagous Mormons or Wiccans.  I saw poster hanging up in one Baptist congregation about evangelism in South America, which implicity excluded Catholics from the numbers it gave for how many in each country are “born again” and therefore saved.

Piper often seems to be aksing the question, “What must I do to be saved?” which is an important question.  Wright seems to be asking the question, “What do we do now that we have been saved?”

That’s the same distinction that the current Southern Baptist quarterly makes between Paul in Galatians and James.

I think it’s fair to say that where Paul and James appear to disagree, they are likely not talking about the same thing (and it’s reasonable to think that the two don’t mean the same thing when they say “justification”).

That’s the same distinction that the current Southern Baptist quarterly makes between Paul in Galatians and James.

I think it’s fair to say that where Paul and James appear to disagree, they are likely not talking about the same thing (and it’s reasonable to think that the two don’t mean the same thing when they say “justification”).

Some will say they are talking about the same thing but in two parts (is it “either or” or “both and”). Perhaps Piper wants to know how we are justified and Wright wants to know how we are sanctified.

#76
Works for me.  Thanks.

OK jedinovice, I’ll bite.

Something often forgotten when discussing the early church is that many of the “Church Fathers” which Catholics will quote to no end today came 100, 200, even 300 years after the time of Jesus. In my opinion, calling them “Church Fathers” makes about as much sense as calling George W. Bush or Barack Obama ‘Founding Fathers’ of the United States.

One analogy that I’ve always found fascinating is one between the Bible and the Constitution. The Constitution was written in 1787, and ratified (or ‘canonized’) in 1788. A mere one year after its ratification, in 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary act, which had a section in it that was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court (a ‘papacy’ of sorts) corrected Congress’ error in 1803. Yet, in 1793, only five years after the Constitution’s ratification, the same Supreme Court made an obviously wrong ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia. Many of those responsible for Chisholm and the Judiciary Act, it should be noted, were also directly responsible for the writing and ratification of the Constitution. The pace of departures picked up as history marched on - McCulloch and Gibbons, 31 and 36 years after ratification, effected a monumental change in Constitutional interpretation. The Court’s gross misinterpretation in Dred Scott was so bad that it partially caused a Civil War in the country, less than a century after ratification. Every era brought new departures from the original Constitution. The early 1900s brought Lochner and wrote laissez-faire economics into the Constitution. The 1930s corrected the Lochner era, but replaced it with a regime of undue deference to legislative power under the general welfare and commerce clauses. The 1960s brought about the Warren Court with its criminal friendly rulings which had no basis whatsoever in the Constitutional text. And 1973 brought Roe v. Wade, which still remains good law today. All of this, mind you, came less than two centuries after the original Constitution was written.  Originalists like Clarence Thomas want to cut through all these accreted tradition and precedents, which command the respect of the vast majority of current judges, and return to the document as it was written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. But Originalism is still widely looked down upon today by those who argue that we need to learn from the continuing history and tradition which has emerged since 1788.

Can authoritative text be misinterpreted almost from the start, and be corrected decades or centuries later? Look at the 14th amendment, which was intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. This intent was disavowed by the Court five years after its ratification in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases. It wasn’t for nearly eighty years (more than half of the 14th amendment’s lifetime) until Justice Hugo Black finally rescued the amendment’s original intent from the morass of tradition and precedent in Adamson v. California. Or look at the “order, vote, and resolution” clause, which was misunderstood for more than 200 years before a recent law school graduate named Seth Barrett Tillman exhaustively proved the correct interpretation in a 2005 article.

Concluding his long article, Tillman wrote “We are intellectually shackled by Madison, his ‘Debates’, ‘The Federalist Papers’, and I would add the writings of Story and Marshall and all the works of the other icons from the era of the Founding and the early Republic. Too often these materials have stifled genuine intellectual debate. This is not to say that we should stop reading these materials… Rather, we must reject giving these or any other originalist materials an interpretive monopoly that undermines our own better judgment and tends to vitiate the constitutional text we are supposed to be interpreting. It is just too easy to allow ourselves the discretion to stop thinking merely because Madison thought otherwise… And that is why some might be afraid, very afraid. After two hundred years, they may come to realize that they backed the wrong horse.”

Admittedly, several objections can be raised to this extended analogy. I’m not claiming it’s perfect. I’m also not claiming that there were “no Christians prior to the Reformation.” But I do not think that it’s at all implausible for an authoritative text like the Bible to have certain parts of it widely misinterpreted for many centuries.

But I do not think that it’s at all implausible for an authoritative text like the Bible to have certain parts of it widely misinterpreted for many centuries.

Sort of like how modern progressives say that certain parts pertaining to homosexuality have been widely misinterpeted for many centuries?

The Federalist Papers of Madison, Jay, and Hamilton are very important in understanding the principles at the very foundation of the of our Republic.  The same would be true of Jefferson, Adams, Washington.  They were there.

While it is an interesting proposition to compare the foundation of Christianity with the foundation of the United States of America I wouldn’t bet five monopoly dollars there are any real similarities.  First of all,  the founder and head of the Church is Jesus Christ.  Not even the Apostles are the founders.  The Church Fathers were divided into two groups: the ante-Nicene Fathers such as Clement of Rome who was the successor of Peter; Polycarp and Ignatius were followers of the apostle and evangelist John; et al.  They were basically those who were converted and taught by the Apostles and Evangelist or taught by those who were taught by the Apostles and so on.
The next set of Church Fathers are the Nicene Fathers - the ones who put together the definitive core of our faith against the myriad of heresies in our day and age. Without these guys Christianity would be a silly barbaric cult.  Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anthanasius (my favorite) helped fight the heresies using the great gifts of their intellect in the light of infused Faith.

Im sorry but the founders of the United States are not worthy of tying the shoes of Polycarp and Anthanasius.

Im sorry but the founders of the United States are not worthy of tying the shoes of Polycarp and Anthanasius.

Yet many who would have a fit about having feast days or icons for Polycarp don’t have a second thought about going on pilgrimages to the temples of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.

But I do not think that it’s at all implausible for an authoritative text like the Bible to have certain parts of it widely misinterpreted for many centuries.

Sort of like how modern progressives say that certain parts pertaining to homosexuality have been widely misinterpeted for many centuries?

No, the correct analogy here would be Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas, which, although they purport to be based in the Constitution, are really just wholesale invention. An honest attempt to cut through precedent to discover true original meaning is not the same as results-based jurisprudence.

OK jedinovice, I’ll bite.

Fair enough. Good for you.  Thanks.

” Something often forgotten when discussing the early church is that many of the “Church Fathers” which Catholics will quote to no end today came 100, 200, even 300 years after the time of Jesus. In my opinion, calling them “Church Fathers” makes about as much sense as calling George W. Bush or Barack Obama ‘Founding Fathers’ of the United States.”

“It wasn’t for nearly eighty years (more than half of the 14th amendment’s lifetime) until Justice Hugo Black finally rescued the amendment’s original intent from the morass of tradition and precedent in Adamson v. California. Or look at the “order, vote, and resolution” clause, which was misunderstood for more than 200 years before a recent law school graduate named Seth Barrett Tillman exhaustively proved the correct interpretation in a 2005 article.”

“But I do not think that it’s at all implausible for an authoritative text like the Bible to have certain parts of it widely misinterpreted for many centuries.”

Yeeaassss…. Thanks for that.  And I can take that as the Protestant answer.  Thanks for the answer. The absence of anyone else ‘giving a go’ confirms what I have always experienced – that the Protestant answer to “Why is Sola fide unknown to the Church Fathers?” is “The Church Fathers don’t matter. I go by the word of God.”

I mean this gently (I lack the thick skin to look for a fight!) but is your case is just an attempt at articulating exactly that.  The Early Fathers were wrong (leave alone the continuous record of history right up tot he Reformation – and beyond given that Sola is not held by 80% of Christians, assuming Catholics and Orthodox are counted) and so we can ignore history.

BTW, I’m trying to show the problem, not attack you.  I’m trying to show the issue.  I know how the internet can be and text can sound far more aggressive than intended.

The difficulties I see with this approach are as follows:

Sola Fide is the key to the Reformation.  Luther was wedded to Sola Fide BEFORE he took the position of Sola Scriptura.  It was the criteria Luther used to identity a genuine Christian Church from apostate.  Scott Hahn joked that if Sola Fide was disproven he would be outside the steps of Vatican the next day!  (He later ate those words!)  The point is that Sola Fide is the Holy Grail to Protestants.  Arguably, even more than Sola Scriptura.  One online Protestant described the emotional attachment to Sola Fide as equivalent to the reverence Catholics have for the Eucharist.  Matt is clearly passionate about the subject.  The number of various Protestant services I have been to in which Sola Fide is expounded from Romans!  I admit, I roll my eyes a bit because in various denominations I KNOW the teaching will be from Romans.  My Protestant prayer partner has described it as “The Roman road to salvation.”  Some Churches seem to think Paul outranks Jesus such is the focus on justification in Romans…  But anyway, this all shows how important Sola Fide is for Protestants.  It is, in many ways, the HEART of the Gospel.  It is HUGE!  (Though, as I say, by the time you take in qualifiers, there is practically speaking very little between us.)

But if Sola Fide is so, so, so huge, if it is THE GOSPEL, why oh why did everyone miss the HEART of the Good News for 1,500 years?!!?  This is not an argument over the perpetual virginity (or not) of Mary, or priestly celibacy – things that can be regarded as important but not the heart of Christianity.  As it is, you see more discussion on these subjects across history than you do about Sola fide!  Even groups like the Donatists did not hold to Sola Fide!  The silence is deafening – especially when the Church has always focussed so much on works and Holiness, the opposite of Sola Fide.  There is an absolute consensus across history until Luther.  If it was something on the edge of Christianity belief I could understand the Church making a mistake (in theoretical terms, for the purpose of discussion here.)  But not on something like Sola Fide.  I drop in on the Baptists and there is no room for any doubt on the subject.  Justification is by Faith Alone. Period.  There is no room for misunderstanding.

I would expect that same clarity from the church across history.  As it stands, I see _exactly_ that clarity on justification by faith AND works. There is an absolute consensus. 

The Protestant answer tends to be to discount the Church Fathers.  As my Calvinist ex-flatmate put it (a great guy and we still catch Anime DVD’s together – hence Belldandy) “If it’s a choice between the word of God and the word of man no contest.”  And that’s it for him.  Subject ended.

But this troubles me.  To discount the Church fathers means to discount the teaching of those who were thrown to the lions for the faith from the start.  These people lost limbs, lost lives, were tortured and literally eaten for their faith.  In Rome the average life expectancy of the Christian after conversion was 1 year.  If you’re going to die for what you believe in you have great clarity about what you believe!  A Baptist who is going to be shot is going to know his beliefs!  So where are the Sola Fide martyrs?

Also, these are the people who brought us the Apostles and the Nicean Creeds.  These are the markers of our faith. If they got it wrong on Sola Fide, how can we trust them on the contents of the creeds, especially as they were formulated after 100 years AD.  If we can’t trust them on Sola Fide, what can we trust them for?

Now, the standard Protestant answer is “We can’t trust them – you can only trust the scriptures.”  But then my head spins because if we can trust the scriptures – how come *everyone* got it wrong for all that time?  I don’t just mean not agreeing with Sola fide. I mean being completely convinced that scripture taught justification by faith and works.  Whatever theological issues were being discussed, Sola Fide just didn’t rear it’s head until Luther.  People were more passionate about the virginity of Mary!  The question of justification was settled until Luther. 

I remember my brain melting at the time I started researching.

Now, you can say, as you do, that people got the interpretation of the Bible wrong on the subject for many centuries.  Believe it or not, theoretically, I can accept this as an argument – to a degree.  But only if the error is an abhoration, like the Eastern fathers falling over regarding Arianism.  But there would have to be some kind of consensus across history still even if interrupted.  (Orthodoxy and Arianism ran alongside each other.  The Eastern fathers changed their minds several times so there were two competing views.  But there was no battle regarding Sola Fide.)  And, once you say that the Church got the interpretation of the Bible wrong on the core of the Gospel, as has already been pointed out, you have no case against the Liberals telling us the Church has got the Bible wrong about homosexuality.  If the CORE of the Gospel has been misread for 1,500 years, what hope is there for defending the lesser issues?  And then you have the problem of a book being so obscure that no-one could work out the heart of it’s message for over 1000 years!

So, to this day it seems the answer to the question “How come the entire church got Sola Fide wrong for 1,500 years?” remains “You can’t trust the Church or history.  Go by the scriptures.”  This to my mind just ends up evidence editing.  History does not match Protestant assumptions so we’ll ignore it.

Again, I hasten to add, I’m not looking for a fight.  I’m really just showing why there is an argument.  I admit, I was online back in 2000 begging Protestants to answer the historical case to stop me completely ‘poping.’  By the sixth time I had “Forget the Church fathers, go by the scriptures” I had gone beyond frustration to “OK, they don’t have an answer – which is my answer.”  I just don’t get how the heart of the Gospel, the subject over which Protestants are MOST passionate about has absolutely zero record in history.  As I say, of all the controversies, even down to basic arguments over the nature of Jesus with Nestorianism and Arianism, Sola Fide did not raise it’s head.  Even the dissenters did not doubt justification by faith and works.  (And, contrary to popular opinion, Augustine did NOT hold as Sola Fide as understood by modern Protestants.)  What with the secular editing of history taking place in the People’s Republic of Great Britain, it’s a problem for me.

But as I say, I’m not looking for a fight.  Really!  I was looking to add a bit of colour to the proceedings.  I can withdraw at this point. I’m not looking to have the last word or really argue for Catholicism.  I’m happy to receive other answer and not fight.  Here I’m just trying to show why the record of history counts – for me anyway.  Sola Fide puzzles me on this front.

I also apologise for the missing words and spelling mistakes that are bound to be in this piece.  I’m a terrible proof reader and Word always disappoints.

Anyway, my latest Anime DVD has *just* appeared this minute so I am going to be focusing on other things anyway.  Certainly this evening!

jedinovice,
I have sat for hours discussing the faith with a convert to Christianity from JW’s - conversion through the Church in Communion with Rome.

The only bits we can’t seem to come to grips on (understand that what we mean is so nearly the same that only “Greek Theologians” would be able to argue it well), really, are the exact nature of Christ in the Bread and Wine, the ‘subject to the Roman Pontiff’ clause, and certain proclamations of ‘the faith’ that were proclaimed after the church became divided.

That said, this Baptist thinks Saving Faith without works meet for repentance is like a monopole magnet.

>jedinovice,
>I have sat for hours discussing the faith with a convert to Christianity
from JW’s - conversion through the Church in Communion with Rome.

>The only bits we can’t seem to come to grips on (understand that what we
mean is so nearly the same that only “Greek Theologians” would be able to
argue it well), really, are the exact nature of Christ in the Bread and
Wine, the ‘subject to the Roman Pontiff’ clause, and certain
proclamations of ‘the faith’ that were proclaimed after the church became
divided.

Amen!  I follow that.  There is so much misunderstanding.  True ecumenism is not denying our differences but it is rejoicing in what we have in common and seeking to fully understand and finding how much we agree!  What we have in common is so much more than what seperates us.

>That said, this Baptist thinks Saving Faith without works meet for
repentance is like a monopole magnet.

Quite.  In many respects the argument on Sola Fide is almost symantics.  I know it isn’t.  There are consequences from the initial ideas.  But the Catholic will deny on is saved by works alone without faith and without the enabling Grace of God.  And the Calvinist will declare that Faith without works is not a saving faith.  Even Calvin in his Institutes says somewhere (I forget where but I actually saved the text on my old computer at the time) says that without works “one will not see Heaven.”

God bless you Bro!

As one currently wrestling with Protestant v Roman Catholic theology (and as yet undecided), I must admit that the Protestant position that until the Reformation, the church was in error is logically inconsistent with the Protestant position that Christians can faithfully and accurately understand the Bible through the guidance of the Holy Spirit - and thus need no other authority.  Was the Holy Spirit inactive in the Church prior to Luther?  Clearly not.  Surely we can rely on Spirit guidance in the creation of Canon, decisions of the early Church Councils, and tenants of the faith held by the early and continuing Church. On the other hand, the illumination of each individual Christian by the Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine seems, well, problematic.  If all we need is faith, the Bible and the Holy Spirit to get it right - why don’t we all agree?

P.S.  Thankyou Revrj for your defense of Bishop Wright

Protestant v Roman Catholic

Now, if you really want to make your faith struggles more intesting, change that to “Protestant v Roman Catholic v Eastern Orthodox”.

must admit that the Protestant position that until the Reformation, the church was in error is logically inconsistent with the Protestant position that Christians can faithfully and accurately understand the Bible through the guidance of the Holy Spirit

I would hestitate to call this “the Protestant position” - though certainly some hold to it. Many would say that there were lots of faithful Christians around and then the Church went wrong… and the faithful Christians “came out of” it.

Look at the current crisis within Anglicanism. Look at all of these faithful anglicans who want to stay anglican… but their local branch office is running in the other direction at a breakneck pace. Does that mean that it’s reasonable to say that there weren’t any Anglicans in N. America until recently?

The second position falls of its own weight without needing the first position to contradict it.

“Protestant v Roman Catholic v Eastern Orthodox”.

I’m only going to make one post on this! Just one.  I agree that Orthodoxy should be considered. Hey, I think it’ll make the threat more interesting!  I’m just going to show that when I went ‘left footed’ fully in 2000, I had considered the Orthodox!  I didn’t forget!  When I resolved to finally sort my theology out once and for all, it *was* a threefold race.

I couldn’t go for the Orthodox for the following reasons:

The Orthodox five times fell away from orthodoxy by their own terms and returned to the Western Tradition on each occasion.
The evidence for the final supremacy of the Bishop of Rome even from the earliest days was just too great.  It was clearly more than “Supremacy of honour.”  Not when the Pope is regarded having the authority to excommunicate the entire Eastern Episcopate over the dating of Easter! 
The Orthodox were just too divided along nationalistic lines.  When I looked at the Orthodox church I have six flavours to choose from with one half not talking to the other!

But the biggest one for me…

After the great schism, the Orthodox ceased to ecumenical councils.  They just stopped.  Ever since the great schism the Orthodox have not been able to unite and call a council.  Now, if the Orthodox appeal to the councils of the past but then not bring themselves to have a council for, ohh, at least 800 years, every since they split from Rome, then something critical was removed form the system.  The machine that used to work a certain way stopped working.
The fact that the Catholic Church has been able to continue with such councils proved the Papacy to me.  Only the Pope could bring a council into being.  In the absence of the Pope the Orthodox lost the power to come together.  (Now you have the Russian orthodox who won’t speak to the Greeks!)

I couldn’t join a Church that made appeal to ecumenical councils and then couldn’t bring one into being.  Hey, the Catholic Church may be nuts, but it is consistent with it’s own principles!  My ex-flat mate did say once “The Catholic Church, I will grant, is consistent within it’s own foundational principles.  I would argue with those principles but they are consistent.”

I mention this just to show I did consider the orthodox back in 1999-2000!  I agree, the orthodox should be on someone’s shortlist when working through their theology.

I will say nothing on this though!  Promise!

Not long now until DVD time…

^^^Not threat, thread!!

Oh man, I just CANNOT type or proof read!!!

Sorry Positive Phototaxi,

I hadn’t realised you were replying to me!

”    I would hestitate to call this “the Protestant position” - though
    certainly some hold to it. Many would say that there were lots of faithful
    Christians around and then the Church went wrong… and the faithful
    Christians “came out of” it.
    Look at the current crisis within Anglicanism. Look at all of these
    faithful anglicans who want to stay anglican… but their local branch
    office is running in the other direction at a breakneck pace. Does that
    mean that it’s reasonable to say that there weren’t any Anglicans in N.
    America until recently?
    The second position falls of its own weight without needing the first
    position to contradict it.  “

Sorry, me dumb.  I don’t understand the point you are making.  I could take a guess at what your saying but I think that would be foolish.  Can you elaborate?  I fear responding to a potential strawman if I don’t get this right.

Thanks.

jedinovice,

“Potential strawman” essentially is my point. To say that “protestant position #1 contradicts protestant position #2” assumes that both #1 and #2 accurately reflect the “protestant position”.

It would be incorrect to claim that protestants generally hold to either “there were no christians prior to the reformation” or “the church had it all wrong for hundreds of years until protestants come along”.

Plenty of protestants believe that they are the more accurate image of the early church. Most would not agree that sola fide was a novel invention of the reformation any more than a Catholic would agree with the ridiculous position that the RC church didn’t exist until hundreds of years after Christ when it first came to be called by that label.

I have held off on commenting on this thread.
As everyone will tell you “Justify” is a passive verb form of “righteous.”  Its foundations are from the law court where a person is “justified” - declared to be right.

We often speak of “justification” and “sanctification” as two separate parts of the Christian faith.  One is to be declared right and the other is to be made holy.  I don’t like that kind of thinking.  I think of it all as justification.  Justification is an event and a process.  We are declared right because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ and our trust in his work.  We are also made right (made holy) by God working in us (throught the Holy Spirit and through Grace) to remake us into the people He created us to be.  This is a process that was begun in us and never ends this side of the Resurrection.

To me, faith and works feed each other and are not independent.  They are interedependent.  My works flow out of my faith.  The greater my faith, the more my works reflect that faith.  Likewise, my works confirm and strengthen my faith.  The greater my works, the stronger my faith. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

>jedinovice,

>“Potential strawman” essentially is my point. To say that “protestant position #1 contradicts protestant position #2” assumes that both #1 and #2 accurately reflect the “protestant position”.

OK.

>It would be incorrect to claim that protestants generally hold to either “there were no christians prior to the reformation” or “the church had it all wrong for hundreds of years until protestants come along”.

Understood.  However, I find that’s what I end up when I try and find what the alternative is!  The arguments tend to regress to this, often as “The Church father’s can’t be trusted, Go by Scripture instead.”  I end up with only those arguments normally.

>Plenty of protestants believe that they are the more accurate image of the early church.
This accurate image would need to be shown from the historical evidence, though, no?

>Most would not agree that sola fide was a novel invention of the reformation any more than a Catholic would agree with the ridiculous position that the RC church didn’t exist until hundreds of years after Christ when it first came to be called by that label.

Sure, I can follow that. I used to believe the early church was essentially Protestant.  It was a real shock to read the ECF’s own words!  My word.  I thought the Pope was Catholic!

But the thing is, this is a very interesting idea and a great resolution of the problem I see with Sola Fide.  But… surely, then, the burden of proof is on the Protestants to show this?  Can the Protestant Sola Fide CHurch be shown from historical evidence?  Given that there is no evidemce for Sola fide in history (that I am aware of anyway) - indeed, quite the contrary - does it not require historical evidence of Sola Fide just being in existence.

I had a laugh a number of year back when I read a book by a Protestant about the make up of the early church and how we should return to it.  The description of the ‘Early Churck’ totally matched your local Charismatic House Church.  He even went so far as to give an example of a Church ‘service’ from Roman times and, apart from the ancient style names, it was a complete recreation of your average ‘New Wine’ style Church.  No liturgy, no eucharist, no priests, etc… The guy had done absolutely no research, he simply ASSUMED what the early Church was like and wrote accordingly describing a non-existent early Roman Church, ignoring the very liturgies we have from the time!! We can actually recreate a 2nd Century Eucharist from the documents we have!!  We do not have to guess how a Church service was held from those days.  We actually know!  But this guy just reproduced a (then) 20th Century Free Church back in Roman times.

He assumed.  He did not quote a single historical source. Not one contemporary quote.  While well meaning, the book was a work of fiction.  He was clearly well meaning but totally a product of his own time and culture.

We know for a fact the early Church was liturgical. We have their liturgies.  We can disprove the notion of a 20th C style Free Church in roman times by showing the liturgies of the day, the prayers of the day, the writings of those very Christians.

So… if the Church has been Sola Fide throughout history, we would expect to see some evidence of it, no?

I’m not trying to be difficult.  You could be onto something - intellectually speaking.  At least you see the problem.  But asserting that Sola fide has been the teaching of Christianity is _only_ an assertion, no?  You need evidence of such a Church - and that’ s my point.  I can’t see any.  I agree that making a claim that Sola Fide has been taught across history resolves the problem.  But then the case for such a Sola fide church - underground or whatever, must be made from history, no?  It can’t just be an assertion, an assumption.

I think you’re making a claim similar to something like the “Trail of Blood Baptists” or “Baptist successionalists.”  I will grant that, logically, this is the best way to resolve the historical evidence problem for Sola fide - to argue that such a Church has always existed but rather underground.  Is this something like what you mean?  (Though, clearly, not in an extremist fashion!)

Sorry, this is starting to be a debate which I was not gunning for. I am not trying to argue, I’m trying to engage and understand.  I think you grasp the issue but it does not seem to really nswer the question except as a theory at this time.  Can you develop this?

As my ex-flatmate would put it.  “Sound intriguing.”

This accurate image would need to be shown from the historical evidence, though, no?

Certainly. But only to their satisfaction… not to yours.

And it really isn’t that hard to show (depending on which flavor of Christianity is doing the looking). Many of today’s disagreements go back much farther than the Reformation… they were just within the church rather than without.

It was a real shock to read the ECF’s own words!

I think that you would also find plenty of ECF’s words that are problematical to your positions.

Given that there is no evidemce for Sola fide in history

We’re right back to the strawman. There’s no evidence for the Catholic church in the early centuries of church history… IF what you’re looking for is someone using the label. Any sola-fide proponent would point first to Paul (if not back to the OT), which is as far back in history as you need to go.

So… if the Church has been Sola Fide throughout history, we would expect to see some evidence of it, no?

And “we” do… if we happen to accept sola fide.

It isn’t as if the Reformers created it out of whole cloth… or just looked back and interpreted (or misinterpreted) Paul. They cited loads of ECFs.

My point is that if you can see sola fide in Paul… you can see it in plenty of other places in the early church.

From Clement:

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

...

“We are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works we have done in holiness of heart, but through FAITH”

From Polycarp

By grace are ye saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ

From Athanasius

Not by these (works) but by FAITH, a man is justified as was Abraham…in no other manner can there be redemption

From St Basil the Great:

“Indeed, this is the perfect and complete glorification of God, when one does not exult in his own righteousness, but recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ.”

Each and every one of these has a reasonable response just as there are responses to seeing sola fide in Paul’s letters. But that isn’t the same thing as saying that there is no evidence for the notion that faith alone is what justifies us. Much of it is (IMHO) “inside baseball” and much ado about notverymuch… so you can expect the ECFs to support either position if viewed through the right-colored glasses. I suspect that many of them wouldn’t understand what all the fuss was about.

I think a large part of the problem is our definition of “faith.”
In our society, we tend to think of “faith” as being the same as “belief” - acceptance that a certain set of statements are true.  From what I understand, “faith” is closer to “trust” and that implies some risk.  I don’t just believe that Jesus is God incarnate who died both for my personal sin and to defeat the powers of sin and death.  As scripture says, even the devils believe and tremble (James 2:19).  I trust that these are true.  I risk my self and my life and my relationship with God that they are true.  This trust is not passive, but is active on our part.  Part of “faith” or trust is stepping out in faith or in trust to do the work God has given you - trusting that God will work through you and in you to accomplish His will.  Abram did not just say “Yes God!  I accept that what you say is true.”  Abram stepped out in that faith and acted upon it.  To not act would have shown that he was not faithful.

If we define faith as “active trust” rather than “passive belief” then we can say that we are justified by faith alone.  But remember that “active trust” entails action.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

This accurate image would need to be shown from the historical evidence,
though, no?

Certainly. But only to their satisfaction… not to yours.

Fine.  As I said I was not looking to fight or sell the Catholic position.  And I meant what I said. 

>And it really isn’t that hard to show (depending on which flavor of
Christianity is doing the looking). Many of today’s disagreements go back
much farther than the Reformation… they were just within the church
rather than without.

Hmm. Again, I’m not sure what point you’re making here.  But no worries.

It was a real shock to read the ECF’s own words!

I think that you would also find plenty of ECF’s words that are
problematical to your positions.

Like I say, I’m not looking to fight here.  To go much deeper would be to go into full debate mode.  It was a shock to me at the time I can tell ya.

Given that there is no evidemce for Sola fide in history

We’re right back to the strawman. There’s no evidence for the Catholic
church in the early centuries of church history… IF what you’re looking
for is someone using the label. Any sola-fide proponent would point first
to Paul (if not back to the OT), which is as far back in history as you
need to go.

^^^
No.  That point does not and cannot hold.  Referring back to Paul is insufficient especially when we should be looking at JESUS for his words on salvation (and they make HUGE reference to works and holiness) and what with James and, frankly, virtually the rest of the Bible.  Paul cannot be taken in isolation I would say.  “The Roman road to salvation” is insufficient.  If Paul really saying what the Reformers said he was saying, I would expect a consensus across history.  Appealing to Paul is insufficient in itself.  Indeed, it quite literally begs the question.

So… if the Church has been Sola Fide throughout history, we would
expect to see some evidence of it, no?

>And “we” do… if we happen to accept sola fide.

>It isn’t as if the Reformers created it out of whole cloth… or just
looked back and interpreted (or misinterpreted) Paul. They cited loads of
ECFs.

I don’t recall such. 

>My point is that if you can see sola fide in Paul… you can see it in
plenty of other places in the early church.

>From Clement:

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

...

“We are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or
understanding or piety or works we have done in holiness of heart, but
through FAITH”

From Polycarp

By grace are ye saved, not of works, but by the will of
God through Jesus Christ

From Athanasius

Not by these (works) but by FAITH, a man is justified as was
Abraham…in no other manner can there be redemption

From St Basil the Great:

“Indeed, this is the perfect and complete glorification of
God, when one does not exult in his own righteousness, but recognizing
oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in
Christ.”

>Each and every one of these has a reasonable response just as there are
responses to seeing sola fide in Paul’s letters.

Quite.  My immediate response is that the Catholic Church has a notion of Sola Fide at the point of initial justification. I stated that at the beginning.  But I am not going to go into the ins and outs of the ECF’s. I am gratified a historical case is being made here.  To know history is not being ignored, not in your case anyway is reassuring.

>But that isn’t the same thing as saying that there is no evidence for the notion that faith
alone is what justifies us. Much of it is (IMHO) “inside baseball”

I’m sorry, being a Brit, I don’t understand the reference to “inside baseball.” So I’m not quite following.

>And much ado about notverymuch…

In many ways I agree with you.  My battle with Protestantism versus catholicism back in 2000 was much more in regard to Sola Scriptura rather than Sola Fide as the latter I saw as practically the same across both camps – extremists on both sides not withstanding.

>so you can expect the ECFs to support either position if viewed through the right-colored glasses. I suspect that many of them wouldn’t understand what all the fuss was about.

^^^
Hmm.  I would disagree.  But I’m not looking for the last word.  Really I’m not.  I’m grateful for the information.  This is certainly more than “I go by the scripture.  Period.”  That’s refreshing!

Many thanks and I hope I have not riled anyone!

Now, DVD!!!

I’m not looking for an argument. I come in peace!
I am looking to provide food for thought.
I am not looking to persuade, only describe.
...
I won’t contest any answer.  I’m not here to cause a fight.  I’m not trying to win converts for Rome here.
...
BTW, I’m trying to show the problem, not attack you.  I’m trying to show the issue.  I know how the internet can be and text can sound far more aggressive than intended.
...
Again, I hasten to add, I’m not looking for a fight.  I’m really just showing why there is an argument.
...
But as I say, I’m not looking for a fight.  Really!  I was looking to add a bit of colour to the proceedings.  I can withdraw at this point. I’m not looking to have the last word or really argue for Catholicism.  I’m happy to receive other answer and not fight.  Here I’m just trying to show why the record of history counts – for me anyway.
...
Sorry, this is starting to be a debate which I was not gunning for. I am not trying to argue, I’m trying to engage and understand.
...
Fine.  As I said I was not looking to fight or sell the Catholic position.  And I meant what I said. 
...
Hmm.  I would disagree.  But I’m not looking for the last word.  Really I’m not.

jedinovice doth protest too much methinks

101
I see what you mean, and I’ve noticed it myself, but I do appreciate jedinovice’s contributions to this thread and the responses to it.  And I appreciate the cordial and non-snarky nature of the conversation as well.

I couldn’t go for the Orthodox for the following reasons:

The Orthodox five times fell away from orthodoxy by their own terms and returned to the Western Tradition on each occasion.
The evidence for the final supremacy of the Bishop of Rome even from the earliest days was just too great.  It was clearly more than “Supremacy of honour.”

I seem to recall that by Roman Catholic terms, the see bishop of Rome has fallen away from orthodoxy at least once.

I’m not Eastern Orthodox, but my understanding is that they do not claim that any given patriarch, see or set of bishops is infalliable, or that the entirety of Latin Christianity has always been distinct, seperate and inferior, but that when the Great Schisim occured, it happened to be the Eastern churches that retained the Orthodox Faith.  The notion that, prior to the Great Schisim, any there were heretical Eastern Patriachs would be no more a problem to them than the notion that some of the Renessaince Popes have been less than perfect in their personal and political lives would be a problem for Roman Catholics. 

After the great schism, the Orthodox ceased to ecumenical councils.  They just stopped.  Ever since the great schism the Orthodox have not been able to unite and call a council.

They see that as a feature, not a bug.  They view the West as having the need to keep inventing new doctines instead of simply preserving and carrying on the unchanging Holy Tradition.

Not to mention the ‘ecumenical councils’ without the bishops of the whole of the Church is, by definition, an impossibility.

Since a number of commentators have expounded upon the Catholic view of justification, I thought it might be useful to hear it from the official source—the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed).  This the abbreviated version, but gets the points across and perhaps answers a few of the questions regarding the place of “works” (or “merits” as is the term used in the CCC)

IN BRIEF

2017 The grace of the Holy Spirit confers upon us the righteousness of God. Uniting us by faith and Baptism to the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, the Spirit makes us sharers in his life.

2018 Like conversion, justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high.

2019 Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.

2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.

2021 Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons. It introduces us into the intimacy of the Trinitarian life.

2022 The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. Grace responds to the deepest yearnings of human freedom, calls freedom to cooperate with it, and perfects freedom.

2023 Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.

2024 Sanctifying grace makes us “pleasing to God.” Charisms, special graces of the Holy Spirit, are oriented to sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. God also acts through many actual graces, to be distinguished from habitual grace which is permanent in us.

2025 We can have merit in God’s sight only because of God’s free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. Man’s merit is due to God.

2026 The grace of the Holy Spirit can confer true merit on us, by virtue of our adoptive filiation, and in accordance with God’s gratuitous justice. Charity is the principal source of merit in us before God.

2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

2028 “All Christians . . . are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity” (LG 40 § 2). “Christian perfection has but one limit, that of having none” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, De vita Mos.G 44, 300D).

2029 “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Mt 16:24).

>jedinovice doth protest too much methinks

Drat!  My cover’s been blown!  All right, I’ll confess.  I’m really a infiltrator from the secret ‘Jesuit society of the Illuminati, keeper of the secret hand and defenders of the True Faith wot the Pope has, cor Blimey’ known as JSOTIKOSHADOTFWTPHCB to the initiated.

But now I’ve blown my cover, I must helicopter out of here! Cardinal Biggles!!

More seriously, I might have ‘protested too much’ because I am very aware of the limitations of the posted word over the spoken word.  So I’m been very keen not to rile.  I’ve been trying to maintain a level of conversation like ‘The inklings’ or I would have with my ex-flatmate.  We’ll toss theological ideas and disagreements about and he’ll go, “how intriguing.  Please continue.”  It’s rather fun.

What’s worrying is that he has been my biggest opponent of my view that the UK has undergone a social revolution and that Christianity is destine in the near future to be declared illegal.  He has battled with me for months.  Two weeks ago we had another discussion, just before watching an Anime DVD, and… he conceded the case to me.  He has been, up to this point, so “It won’t happen here” that for me to convince him the UK was becoming effectively communist was a shock!

I may have protested too much also, because I’ve seen too many of these kids of discussions degenerate into fights.  Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura (matched with Marian doctrines) are highly emotive subjects.  I bear the scars.

Anyway, I think it’s been a good, cordial discussion.  One of the best on the subject I’ve known with good, intelligent responses all round.  It’s been rather refreshing.