# Is R.C. Sproul wrong about Martin Luther?



## Canadian Baptist (Oct 22, 2005)

Read the article. 
In a nutshell, must we *believe* in justification by faith alone to *be justified* by faith alone? If so, there were no Christians between the Apostles and Luther. Augustinian and Thomist Catholics have defended fervently salvation completely by the grace of God alone, just read the Council of Orange, Augustine and many others. Yet Sola Fide is new with Luther. How does this all fit guys? Comments please....

http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/47/47-1/47-1-pp089-120_JETS.pdf


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 22, 2005)

God has always had a remnant, even during the periods you mention, else Christ failed in his promise.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[Edited on 10-22-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## bond-servant (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> God has always had a remnant, even during the periods you mention, else Christ failed in his promise.
> 
> Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
> ...


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

We are not saved by rational arguments on justification. We are not saved by our understanding of justification. We are saved by God's gift of faith, wherein He grants each different levels of understanding on justification.
But faith, childlike, includes the person and work of Christ. On this we must agree. Augustines idea of _ratio_ (reason) means the gaze of the mind, _aspectus mentis_, and he intimates that understanding is the reward of such faith.
Understanding comes with maturity in God's word and living out the gospel.

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## AdamM (Oct 22, 2005)

Is that really what Sproul says? 

I reread the passages in the book and I think all Sproul is saying is that sola fide is essential to the gospel. My take on it is that Sproul is making the point that if you knowingly look the doctrine of sola fide square in the eyes and reject it (as Rome does) then you have rejected the gospel. Should that be controversial among us confessional folks? 

On page 178 Sproul asks the following:

1. Is sola fide essential to the gospel?
2. Is the gospel essential to Christianity and to salvation?
3. Is the denial of the gospel an act of apostasy?

I would think if we answer yes to the above, then we are forced to conclude is someone _denies_ sola fide then they can't be be saved no matter when they lived. Of course this doesn't mean a perfect understanding of sola fide is required and interestingly, Sproul himself in many other works makes the case for pre-reformation figures being saved by an imperfect understanding of sola fide, but that is a whole different ballgame then saying as ECT does that you can deny sola fide and still have the gospel.

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

Adam you are right. But many people do not understand the difference between infused or imputed righteousness. Those who reject the clear teaching of the scripture are culpable, but what about those who believe who Christ is, and that it was by His grace thay are saved and His work, yet hold to erroneous doctrines of infusion because they have never been enlightened by the scriptures ? ?


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 22, 2005)

Well said, Mark.

(Off topic: Is your congregation affiliated with the AMiA?)


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> (Off topic: Is your congregation affiliated with the AMiA?)



Yes.


----------



## AdamM (Oct 22, 2005)

Hi Mark, 

Sorry, I added some material as an edit after the original post and I think it gets to what you are asking about. 

I see it as two different questions. A person with a simple faith, that just goes around trusting in Jesus and doesn't know the difference or importance between infusion and imputation of course is saved. However a theologian or pastor who tackles the issue head on and denies sola fide is committing apostasy. That is what i think the issue is with ECT, which is the almost exclusive thrust of Sproul's book, not his ideas of about how the pre-reformation saints were saved.

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

Adam, I think you are correct. Teachers are held to a higher judgment. Someone could be saved by sola fide applied, without really understanding all the nuances of the doctrine itself. Sola Fide is just that, a doctrine of how the gospel is applied. God saves man by graciously giving him the gift of faith. Opening blind eyes, or deaf ears, is the analogy Christ used. But, as we mature in faith, our VISION, and HEARING improve by the illumination of the HOly Spirit and the knowledge of the scriptures. I have been a Christian since I was a young boy, and believed many a heretical doctrine along the way. We must pray for wisdom and understanding. 
I love Anselms statement _fides quaerens intellectum_, faith seeking understanding. Saving faith will always be manifested by a hunger for the word, and a deeper knowledge of Christ.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 22, 2005)

> Should that be controversial among us confessional folks?



The Gospel by its very nature being utterly against the worship of the will, seeking self and autonomy, that is fallen nature, that is to say that the Cross of Christ always slaughters the will of the old Adam - will always be by necessity polemical. If its not, then likely it is not the Gospel OR it is being obsured by some other doctrine mis-applied. 

That is why such much Controversy ALWAYS surrounds works and the Gospel, no body wants to REALLY believe the Gospel is the power (against Scripture) and the human will wants to re-assert some work on the back end, even very hidden. Rome is rather blunt on the end of Justification. However, evangelicals and some so called reformed even usually slip it back in at Sanctification. Almost everybody asserts grace, but then they slip in a micky later, a tricky implied "you must work your way to heaven or else". They just cannot grasp that the Gospel empowers freely, it really really does. 

It matters little if the "work" is from a liberal theology, a quick slap on the back or positive thinking "you can do it"; or if it is from a more conservative theology which declares the depths of human sin but later just raise more grace necessary to meet the wills needs. Both of these are will worshipping and from the fallen religion of man. Luther called them glory religions and they are all known by one KEY factor, they ALWAYS hold out something somewhere for the human will to do with an eye to or toward salvation (they need not be blunt about it and often are not). For example the John MacArthur Vs. Zane Hodges debates: At the end of the day neither man taught true Gospel in their mutual gastly books AT ALL! But said they did, rather they wasted a lot of time and paper arguing against each other's wrong theology and other Gospel (Zane more so than JM).

It is ironic that John Calvin gets saddled with the identity by the other camp as anti-free will more than Luther. Because Luther wrote FAR FAR more and obliterated any residuals of the "free-will" than Calvin ever even put to pen and paper.

LDH


----------



## Canadian Baptist (Oct 22, 2005)

If Sola Fide is essential to the gospel, then it must be essential regardless of subjective interpretation by individuals ignorant of its truth, in any age. If Imputation and Sola Fide are in the scripture then that leaves every age without excuse. Yet you do not find either doctrine until the Reformation.
For example, people do not become lost because they consciously reject the truth of Christianity, they stand condemned from birth whether they know the truth or not. Similarily, we seem to imply that the Church as a whole was not fully responsible for these things until they consciously rejected them at Trent. 
It seems that those who passionately defend Sola Fide and Imputation (myself included), while saying they are essential to the Gospel are inconsistent.
We will usually defend anyone before Trent who fought for salvation entirely by grace (Sola Gratia) and overlook the absence of Sola Fide and Imputation in their beliefs, however Sproul says on page 186 "Can a person be saved if he has faith in Christ and in his own works and merit?" Augustine and Aquinas taught works and merit as important aspects of salvation yet they said these also were solely caused by the sovereign Grace of God working them in the elect. (Infusion)
So are Sola Fide and Imputation essential for all in every age? 
And now after Trent, we say ignorance cannot be claimed, so no one defends an Augustinian or Thomist who still teach Sola Gratia but not Sola Fide just as Augustine and others did before Trent. 
I personally refuse to reject pre-Reformation "saints of Grace" yet I feel like my Reformation categories about Justification make me squirm in discomfort. If I accept Pre-Reformation "Grace defenders", then I must accept modern defenders of Grace as well, whether they are Catholic or not. Anyone else feel this dilemma?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

D. Hunter,

Check this out:




> I found a website where one Michael J. Vlach is reviewing Alister E. McGrath's book, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (2d. ed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
> 
> 
> Here are some interesting comments showing that Protestantism departed from Augustine at several key points:
> ...






[Edited on 10-23-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

> I personally refuse to reject pre-Reformation "saints of Grace" yet I feel like my Reformation categories about Justification make me squirm in discomfort. If I accept Pre-Reformation "Grace defenders", then I must accept modern defenders of Grace as well, whether they are Catholic or not. Anyone else feel this dilemma?



Yes, it is a dilemma. I solve it by maintaining that faith is quite a mystery, and while I prefer the reformed side of the river, Sola Gratia is more important, and would tend to be more gracious towards those who hold to a different view of justification.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

This is interesting also,


Melanchthon had written to Brenz on April 8, saying that he understood why Brenz, a newly married man, hadn´t written, but asking him to start corresponding again. He also sent some propositions about justification. Brenz must have commented on them in a letter not found in the collection of Melanchthon´s correspondence. In mid-May Melanchthon responded: 



> I received your rather long letter, which I enjoyed very much. I beg you to write often and at length. Regarding faith, I have figured out what your problem is (1). You still hold on to that notion of Augustine´s, who gets to the point of denying that the righteousness of reason is reckoned for righteousness before God"”and he thinks rightly. Next he imagines that we are counted righteous on account of that fulfillment of the Law which the Holy Spirit works in us. So you imagine that people are justified by faith, because we receive the Holy Spirit by faith, so that afterwards we can be righteous by the fulfillment of the law which the Holy Spirit works in us.
> 
> This notion places righteousness in our fulfillment, in our cleanness or perfection, even though this renewal must follow faith. But you should turn your eyes completely away from this renewal and from the law, and toward the promise and Christ, and you should think that we are righteous, that is, accepted before God, and find peace of conscience, on account of Christ, and not on account of that renewal. For this new quality itself does not suffice. Therefore we are righteous by faith alone, not because it is the root, as you write, but because it lays hold of Christ, on account of whom we are accepted, whatever this new life (2) may be like"”indeed it follows necessarily, but it does not give the conscience peace.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 22, 2005)

Nobody dying denying justification by faith alone see's God. Hence, all those of the past who are Christs by election and have have held contrary views prior to their death, God by His perfect grace and mercy bestows that truth prior to their demise.


----------



## AdamM (Oct 22, 2005)

A timely article by F.J. De Angelis addressing the question:

http://www.semper-reformanda.org/journal/ 



> Sandlin Downplays Sola Fide, Rewrites History
> 
> Sandlin has admitted that he no longer holds to Reformed theology (I commented on his admission in the March 25, 2005 entry, "Andrew Sandlin Comes Clean"). He now makes public statements concerning justification by faith alone and its doctrinal centrality to the Christian faith that seriously call into question even his claim to be generically Protestant. It is highly problematic to claim that one believes in the historic Protestant doctrine of justification and at the same time claim that said doctrine is merely a "denominational distinctive," not touching on orthodoxy or heresy.
> 
> ...





[Edited on 10-23-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Nobody dying denying justification by faith alone see's God. Hence, all those of the past who are Christs by election and have have held contrary views prior to their death, God by His perfect grace and mercy bestows that truth prior to their demise.



Or they spend a little time in purgatory.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 23, 2005)

Adam,



> The concept of justification by faith alone was by no means new with Luther. Indeed, the ecumenically minded Roman Catholic scholar Hans KÃ¼ng has in effect contended that Luther's doctrine really was fully and satisfactorily Catholic, but of course KÃ¼ng himself has been rebuked by the pope.



Sidenote/digression: Woe, I have never heard this, have you read Hans Kung ? ?
Makes me want to check his work out.


----------



## DTK (Oct 23, 2005)

I read Heckel´s essay (article). I found it very scholarly and helpful in one sense, and very disturbing in another sense. His article is very helpful in delineating Augustine´s position on justification. In fact, if you want to read something that explains Augustine´s view on justification, you can find, to my knowledge, no better treatment of it than here. 

Moreover, the way he handles the views of Luther and Calvin on justification _via sola fide_ is likewise astute, insightful, and carefully nuanced. He does show, I think to my satisfaction, that Luther and Calvin were not ready to anathematize the pre-Reformation Church in their doctrinal formulations of _sola fide_. Thus his treatment of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin on the subject of justification is simply put, superb. 

However, I found it disturbing from the perspective of his optimism regarding Rome. His subsequent treatment of its position regarding justification suffers from a lack of the same perceptiveness, clarity, and exactness with which he treats Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. He assigns to Rome´s "œacceptance" of the _Joint Declaration_ regarding justification and the discussions of _Evangelicals and Catholics Together_ a status that he hasn´t established is indeed representative and/or reflective of the kind of dogmatic weight to which Rome views conciliar or papal authority with respect to doctrinal formulations. He glosses over Trent, stating that, 


> But Catholics do not generally treat their confessional documents like an inerrant Bible; instead, they tend to treat them contextually.


Such a statement is true if you accept the fact that many modern day Roman Catholic theologians (and apologists) have succumbed to post-modern tendencies, and do indeed subject past, official, dogmatic pronouncements to the death of a thousand qualifications. But the truth is that such statements do not reflect the official position of the Roman communion´s magisterium.

Moreover, Heckel´s insistence (which I think is helpful) in his critique of some Protestant tendencies, in which "œsola fide becomes an object of saving faith rather than Christ alone" and that "œits precise formulation was [is] not essential to know in order to be saved by the gospel" is not equally applied by his hand to Rome, which does dogmatically state that *its doctrinal formulations must be believed* in order to be saved. In other words, there is a great disparity of perceptiveness and astuteness between his *methodological treatment* of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin and his*optimistic and/or naive treatment* of Rome.

Furthermore, his essay/article virtually ignores the long list of doctrinal accretions that Rome has itself attached to the substance/essence of the gospel in making such dogmatic pronouncements regarding the papacy and Marian doctrines (perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, bodily assumption), and insisting that these dogmas must be believed in order to be saved, while at the same time affirming, in contradiction to past pronouncements, with Vatican II and John Paul II that even pagans, Muslems, and Jews can be saved apart from conversion to Jesus Christ. In other words, he takes certain Protestants to task for trying to add to the essence of the gospel, while optimistically ignoring that this is precisely what Rome itself has done. 

Thus, while his treatment of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin displays a very learned and astute awareness, his optimism seems to have blinded him from offering the same kind of objectivity and evenhandedness in the way in which he deals with Rome. Again, learned accuracy prevails in his treatment of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, while naiveté prevails in his optimistic approach to Rome. There is, to be sure, an overt double-standard in his methodology, in that he does not apply to Rome the same precision with which he delineates the views of Augustine and the Reformers, as well as his critique of certain Protestants for seeking to add to the essence of the gospel. 

Now, I understand that one may defend him by asserting that this was beyond the scope of his paper, but that doesn´t change the fact that it leaves the reader with a very unbalanced view of the real gap between Roman and Reformational theologies of grace, and how we come to be right with God.

DTK


----------



## Canadian Baptist (Oct 23, 2005)

Very helpful DTK. 
So, as I said earlier, why will we not accept modern Augustinian and Thomist Catholics who seem to throw all dependence on God for all aspects of their salvation by continually begging for more grace. As we know like Augustine, they are asking for God to work in them what He demands of them including the gratuitous gift of perseverance in grace. They also believe that God from all eternity has chosen His elect for glory apart from any forseen merits of theirs as He has loved some men (the elect) more than others by giving them faith itself. And none of them would ever say that we are not saved by faith, they would just say that it is not by faith alone. They condemned Semi-Pelagianism at the Council of Orange. Yet again if anyone today draws back from Sola Fide they are immediately called heretics but Augustine and many of the Fathers are preserved from this anathema because we need them as stalwart defenders of Grace. We appeal to the early Councils because we need them to affirm historical evidence that Christ has fulfilled His promise of not letting the gates of Hell prevail against the Church, but we pick and choose when and why we appeal to them because we know that they did not believe much of what we believe as Reformed folks.
I know the Roman Church stumbles all over itself trying to weave together all the contradictory proclamations etc. They try to portray a monolithic united Catholic Church but because Vatican II so badly conradicts previous Canons and anathemas against us, they themselves have splintered into numerous Traditionalist groups who reject the Pope and the mother Church because of these very contradictions. But I am concerned about us, not them. I'm not talking about accepting the Roman Church as a whole. I am just trying to sort out our heritage and be consistant by granting modern equivalents of Augustine what we granted to him.
We need to be careful, if something is heresy today it had to be heresy in 400 AD as well. 
Soli Deo Gloria.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian Baptist_
> Very helpful DTK.
> So, as I said earlier, why will we not accept modern Augustinian and Thomist Catholics who seem to throw all dependence on God for all aspects of their salvation by continually begging for more grace. As we know like Augustine, they are asking for God to work in them what He demands of them including the gratuitous gift of perseverance in grace. They also believe that God from all eternity has chosen His elect for glory apart from any forseen merits of theirs as He has loved some men (the elect) more than others by giving them faith itself. And none of them would ever say that we are not saved by faith, they would just say that it is not by faith alone. They condemned Semi-Pelagianism at the Council of Orange. Yet again if anyone today draws back from Sola Fide they are immediately called heretics but Augustine and many of the Fathers are preserved from this anathema because we need them as stalwart defenders of Grace. We appeal to the early Councils because we need them to affirm historical evidence that Christ has fulfilled His promise of not letting the gates of Hell prevail against the Church, but we pick and choose when and why we appeal to them because we know that they did not believe much of what we believe as Reformed folks.
> I know the Roman Church stumbles all over itself trying to weave together all the contradictory proclamations etc. They try to portray a monolithic united Catholic Church but because Vatican II so badly conradicts previous Canons and anathemas against us, they themselves have splintered into numerous Traditionalist groups who reject the Pope and the mother Church because of these very contradictions. But I am concerned about us, not them. I'm not talking about accepting the Roman Church as a whole. I am just trying to sort out our heritage and be consistant by granting modern equivalents of Augustine what we granted to him.
> ...


It is clear there are some challenges to the thesis of the author that Luther was "inventing" the doctrine of _Sola Fide_. I also think that, while Historical Theology is useful, some fall in the trap of making it the normative way to discern the meaning of Scripture. I'm not accusing you of that though.

That said, is it fair to posit a movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church over the centuries to provide a corrective to the doctrine of Justification? We see that in the movement, in the early Church, where some issues of the nature of the Godhead and of Christ were worked out. Would some of the ante-Nicene Fathers been willing to concede some of their faulty thinking if they had lived to work out these Creeds? I think so.

Some of the other works show conclusively that Luther did not arrive at the doctrine of Justification through mere speculation and even Hans Kung admits it to be orthodox. In the life of the Church, I believe the Reformation to be the time where the Holy Spirit raised men to bring Justification to the forefront. As some other doctrines had been worked out by controversy in centuries past, so was the Reformation the moment in Church history to wrestle with Justification.

I understand your sentiment and, on a certain level, I understand what you're saying. I don't believe I, or anyone else, knows the heart and what God has done in a man. I know I have much sin that clouds my thoughts and how I understand God.

That being said, it seems like "...the cards are on the table now." The Church has wrestled with this issue and it is one thing for the Pharisees to be arguing with Paul about circumcising Gentiles prior to the Council of Jerusalum and quite another for them to continue to argue once the Church had wrestled with the issue.

In short, I think it's one thing for Augustine, a titan of theology, to make a few errors concerning the nature of Justification and to "forgive" him. It is quite another now that the Church has discussed the whole idea of merit and to still subscribe to a view that others have shown, through the Scriptures and plain reason to be faulty. At that point, it seems like one would be holding to a view of Justification based not on Scripture but on historical theology.

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## DTK (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian Baptist_
> 
> So, as I said earlier, why will we not accept modern Augustinian and Thomist Catholics who seem to throw all dependence on God for all aspects of their salvation by continually begging for more grace. As we know like Augustine, they are asking for God to work in them what He demands of them including the gratuitous gift of perseverance in grace. They also believe that God from all eternity has chosen His elect for glory apart from any forseen merits of theirs as He has loved some men (the elect) more than others by giving them faith itself. And none of them would ever say that we are not saved by faith, they would just say that it is not by faith alone. They condemned Semi-Pelagianism at the Council of Orange. Yet again if anyone today draws back from Sola Fide they are immediately called heretics but Augustine and many of the Fathers are preserved from this anathema because we need them as stalwart defenders of Grace. We appeal to the early Councils because we need them to affirm historical evidence that Christ has fulfilled His promise of not letting the gates of Hell prevail against the Church, but we pick and choose when and why we appeal to them because we know that they did not believe much of what we believe as Reformed folks.
> I know the Roman Church stumbles all over itself trying to weave together all the contradictory proclamations etc. They try to portray a monolithic united Catholic Church but because Vatican II so badly conradicts previous Canons and anathemas against us, they themselves have splintered into numerous Traditionalist groups who reject the Pope and the mother Church because of these very contradictions. But I am concerned about us, not them. I'm not talking about accepting the Roman Church as a whole. I am just trying to sort out our heritage and be consistant by granting modern equivalents of Augustine what we granted to him.
> ...



1) I suppose I wasn't helpful enough.

2) The Council of Orange was not an ecumenical council in the eyes of Rome, hence they ascribe no sense of infallibility to it, and hence no binding nature of it.

3) I don't accept Roman Catholics as Christians at face value for the simple reason that as long as they remain in the communion of Rome, they are in a communion that does indeed demand belief in dogmatic accretions/additions to the gospel for which Heckel sought to chide Sproul. That's not to say there are no Christians within the Roman communion. It's simply to say that I refuse to grant that "blanket" affirmation; and if such folk are Christians, they are Christians in spite of Rome's teaching and not because of it. What Heckel ignores is that Rome does the very thing for which he wants to chide Dr. Sproul. At least Dr. Sproul could argue that he has biblical grounds for insisting, as he seems to do, that _sola fide_ is the essence of the gospel, whereas Rome has no such biblical support for its dogmatic accretions.

3) I don't appeal to such ancient sources, when I cite them, because *I* "need them to affirm historical evidence that Christ has fulfilled His promise of not letting the gates of Hell prevail against the Church!" That is a Roman argument. And if that is true, then the gates of hell did prevail for nearly 50 years in the 4th century in terms of the Arian heresy, when as Jerome testified, 


> *Jerome (347-420):* The Church does not consist in walls, but in the truths of her teachings. The Church is there where there is true faith. As a matter of fact, fifteen and twenty years ago, all the church buildings belonged to heretics, for heretics twenty years ago were in possession of them; but the true Church was there where the true faith was. _FC, Vol. 48, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 1, On the Psalms_, Homily 46 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), p. 344.
> 
> *Jerome (347-420):* The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian. _NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Dialogue Against the Luciferians_, Â§19.


When I do appeal to them it is to demonstrate that Rome, which btw does claim these sources (_consensus Patrum_, conciliar authority) to be a rule of faith, is the communion that "picks and chooses" from these sources while ignoring where they rejected modern Roman accretions. The WCF (31:4) instructs us that we "are not" to make conciliar authority "the rule of faith or practice; but to be used as an help in both." So when I do appeal to ancient sources, I do so to demonstrate Rome's inconsistency in these matters, and to refute the notion that all our views are novel. Since We don't claim them as a rule of faith, we don't need to assent to everything they taught, but only that which they taught which can be embraced as supported by biblical authority.

4) Personally, I don't call Roman Catholics "heretics" for denying _sola fide_; I call them heretics when they affirm dogmatic accretions to the gospel as part and parcel of the gospel and necessary to be believed. I do so on the basis of Galatians 1:6-9. When they affirm extrabiblical dogmatic accretions to be part of the gospel (which they do), they are under the curse of perverting the gospel of Christ with a "different gospel." 

5) I'm concerned about us too, but I would be hesitant to say---"We need to be careful, if something is heresy today it had to be heresy in 400 AD as well"---Because the question that raises in my mind when I read that sentence is, how do you think heresy is to be identified. If it can be identified as heresy today, it had to be heresy in 100 AD as well, at the end of the apostolic age. Now, to be sure, unlike Rome, I do not believe that there is any doctrinal deviation today that cannot be sufficiently addressed and answered on the basis of the inscripturated apostolic testimony. But I stress again, that when I speak with Roman Catholics about the gospel (and I have exchanged with many of them), and they affirm Rome's dogmatic accretions to the gospel, I don't grant them the status of my affirmation of them as Christians, for the simply reason they have added extrabiblical accretions to the essence of the gospel. Our Reformed heritage does not necessitate that we embrace every tenet of the post-apostolic church. 

In other words, you can't consistently call Roman Catholics back to the biblical gospel while at the same embracing them as if they haven't deviated from that gospel. Perhaps, you can find some who are very ignorant of their communion's teachings, and who upon examination demonstrate their trust in Christ alone. But that is not what Rome teaches, and if we ignore that in our dealings with Roman Catholics, we do so to the impoverishment of their never-dying souls.

DTK


----------



## Saiph (Oct 23, 2005)

> Personally, I don't call Roman Catholics "heretics" for denying sola fide; I call them heretics when they affirm dogmatic accretions to the gospel as part and parcel of the gospel and necessary to be believed. I do so on the basis of Galatians 1:6-9. When they affirm extrabiblical dogmatic accretions to be part of the gospel (which they do), they are under the curse of perverting the gospel of Christ with a "different gospel."



I agree David.

In my opinion, (and that is all it is) the idolatry of RC is more damnable than the misunderstanding of justification. I agree with what Rich said above about biblical knowkedge and history. The worship of Mary by making her co-redemprtress/mediatrix etc . . . breaks the first and sencond commandments. But which commandment is broken by a faulty view of justification ? I suppose in an extreme sense it would break the same two if the individual actually believes they stand before God on the basis of their own works righteousness. But, if they follow Augustine, and say, they are justified by faith working through love, and all their righteousness is God's work in and through them, is it really that far off ? (As Calvin, Luther, Gerstner admit to it being basically reformed)

Any thoughts from the individuals who zealously affirm that _sola fide_ is indeed the _articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae_ ?


----------



## Canadian Baptist (Oct 23, 2005)

Mark said:

But, if they follow Augustine, and say, they are justified by faith working through love, and all their righteousness is God's work in and through them, is it really that far off ? (As Calvin, Luther, Gerstner admit to it being basically reformed)

This is exactly my point. This is what I am trying to sort out. 
If I gave this quote to any of our Reformed or Calvinistic Baptist Stalwarts to look at today they would immediately declare it heretical because it declares that God justifies by faith working righteousness in us rather than "extra nos" or outside of us through Christ. That is until you mention Augustine, then it is immediately qualified with "Oh, but...." and the guns are lowered.


----------



## Canadian Baptist (Oct 23, 2005)

DTK said:

"2) The Council of Orange was not an ecumenical council in the eyes of Rome, hence they ascribe no sense of infallibility to it, and hence no binding nature of it."

Here's a quote from the Catholic site New Advent:

The acts of the council, which were signed by the bishops, the pretorian prefect Liberius and seven other distinguished laymen, were forwarded to Rome and approved by Boniface II on 25 January, 531 (see BONIFACE II). They consequently enjoy Å“cumenical authority and are printed in Denzinger's "Enchiridion Symbolorum" (10th ed., nos. 174-200). 

DTK, you said:

"But I stress again, that when I speak with Roman Catholics about the gospel (and I have exchanged with many of them), and they affirm Rome's dogmatic accretions to the gospel, I don't grant them the status of my affirmation of them as Christians, for the simply reason they have added extrabiblical accretions to the essence of the gospel."

So are you basically saying that because modern Catholics are placing themselves under all the bogus declarations of dogma from the past 1500 years or so, which Augustine knew nothing about, that they are culpable?
Are they disqualified from the status of defenders of salvation by Grace Alone because they consent to all of the additional bunk the Catholic Church have added over the years? I suppose that would make some sense. Maybe we can't deal with them on the same basis as we can Augustine even if the agree with him 100%.


----------



## AdamM (Oct 23, 2005)

> Are they disqualified from the status of defenders of salvation by Grace Alone



Do you really believe that the modern (post Trent) RC church is a defender of salvation by grace alone?

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## DTK (Oct 23, 2005)

> Here's a quote from the Catholic site New Advent:
> 
> The acts of the council, which were signed by the bishops, the pretorian prefect Liberius and seven other distinguished laymen, were forwarded to Rome and approved by Boniface II on 25 January, 531 (see BONIFACE II). They consequently enjoy Å“cumenical authority and are printed in Denzinger's "Enchiridion Symbolorum" (10th ed., nos. 174-200).
> 
> ...



I stand corrected on Orange and I thank you. Though it is not usually included in the list of ecumenical councils, I erred. It is the confirmation of Boniface II which grants it a status of "infallibility" for Roman Catholics. But having read every article articulated by Orange, I don't think that the historic Reformed position can affirm everything that this council "decreed." I have Denzinger readily at hand, and failed to consult him.

As for your second point, it ceases to be grace alone when extrabiblical accretions are made binding on the conscience as necessary for salvation. To be sure, Rome will settle here for implicit faith in the Church, even if an intellectual grasp and/or understanding is lacking. But again, that is a shift from trust in God to a trust in the fallible decisions of men. I repeat, Rome is far more guilty of doing the same thing with which Heckel charges Sproul, and for far less commendable reasons. If I had to choose between the two, I'd rather err on the side of Sproul than glossing over all of Rome's blunders in this respect. But since I need not choose between the two, I can sympathize to some extent with his critique of Sproul, while disagreeing with the way in which he glosses over the problems with Rome's dogmatic accretions.

It seems that Heckel's article, in this respect (as I mentioned before), suffers from a glaring double-standard. And it's because of his astute perception of Augustine and the Reformers that I would tend to hold his feet to the fire all the more. On further reflection, I think he should have included in his critique another statement by Calvin that he doesn't address, nonetheless, I abide with my previous statement that he does a very perceptible treatment of Calvin. However, he simply does not treat Rome's position as carefully as he does Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, when his article makes it abundantly clear to me that he has the ability to do so. Here is a fine example of how even very capable scholarship can fall short on the grounds of prejudice, or naiveté, or a combination of the two. 

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## Canadian Baptist (Oct 23, 2005)

Adam said:

"Do you really believe that the modern (post Trent) RC church is a defender of salvation by grace alone?"

As I stated in my previous posts, I am not defending Catholicism in general at all, nor do I think that they stand on Grace Alone as a whole. I am trying to figure out how I should see modern Augustinian and Thomistic Catholics who agree with Augustine's clear defense of Sola Gratia. The Catholic Church officially "allows" for strong adherance to Sola Gratia and Predestination among their ranks but as a whole will distance itself from these truths. 

DTK said:

"But having read every article articulated by Orange, I don't think that the historic Reformed position can affirm everything that this council "decreed.""

I agree. But it seems that some Catholic writers are trying to call their church back to a condemnation of Semi-Pelagianism when they appeal to Orange and Augustine and Aquinas in this regard. Shouldn't we be using Augustine, Orange and Aquinas as reference points for Catholics who don't know their own Church's heritage on Grace? Above all, we use the scripture. However, if Sola Fide is exclusive in its Reformation sense, then we must stop using or appealing to Augustine, Aquinas, Orange etc.


----------



## AdamM (Oct 23, 2005)

> In fact, if you want to read something that explains Augustine´s view on justification, you can find, to my knowledge, no better treatment of it than here.



Agreed. 

For what it's worth, in the interest of full disclosure to my fellow board members, although we disagree on this issue, Matt (the author of the article) is a good friend and as David noted a very capable scholar.


----------



## AdamM (Oct 23, 2005)

> I am trying to figure out how I should see modern Augustinian and Thomistic Catholics who agree with Augustine's clear defense of Sola Gratia. The Catholic Church officially "allows" for strong adherance to Sola Gratia and Predestination among their ranks but as a whole will distance itself from these truths.



A couple of thoughts:

1. I would first say that we don't have infalible knowledge about the state of any person's soul and as I wrote earlier, I think there will be many people in heaven who while on earth didn't have all the I's dotted and T's crossed in regard to their theology. Perhaps some of them will be those Augustinans you mention - contrary to the official teaching of their church? Isn't that the issue? Yes, a person can be saved in the RC church, but it is by believing something inconsistent with her official teachings. I don't think anybody would argue with that, but that seems to me to be an entirely different scenario then ECT and the Joint Declaration present. ECT says that the official position of Rome contains the gospel, so that a person who consistently follows her teachings will be saved. Apples verses oranges compared to the first.

2. Here is a section from James White's book on Justification (page 134) that I think applies to this discussion:



> It has long been the practice of opponents of sola fide to to point to the patristic witness and hence preclude the exegetical conclusion of the inspired text itself: _ "Surely if that is a consistent interpretation of the Scriptures it would have been known from the beginning." (McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 36) _ But students of church history well know that such an assertion does not follow from the evidence. Many vital biblical topics were not discussed in-depth in patristic sources for many centuries. The Atonement for example, so central and definitional to a Scripture based understanding of the gospel, did not receive full treatment until Athanasius's work in the middle of the fourth century. Even then, the history of the church shows the prevalence of wildly unbiblical views of this doctrine despite the depth of the teachings found in the book of Hebrews.
> 
> Regarding justification, one simply does not find the kind of exegetical study and discussion in the early fathers upon which to base accusations against sola fide.. It simply was not the subject of debate in their context, so to put great weight upon their default position, when it is a position informed by tradition and not the kind of thoughtful conflict that drives one into the Scriptures is folly.



3. Do the Scriptures clearly teach sola fide? Shouldn't that be the first question we ask?

4. I understand and sympathize with the desire to avoid needless bickering over secondary issues, but does sola fide fit into that category? Do we really do our Roman Catholic friends any favors by attempting to minimize our differences over sola fide? If you have cancer, the news would certainly be disturbing, but wouldn't you want know as soon as possible, so you can seek a cure? So then, how loving would it be as a doctor to do everything possible to minimize the danger signs?

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 23, 2005)

D. Hunter, 

In short to "get" imputation is to get the gospel & to not "get it" is to not get the gospel. Now this may not happen for a lot of people until death, the last acting of the Law on the person before departure - then they may see at last the Gospel.

Luther said in his day that many a monk was saved on their death beds. As they lay dying & examining their lives & its works...AS Christians. They were driven to terror as death beakoned at last, were their lives & works, we might call them fruit today, enough. Finding absolutely no peace terror set in. Then upon death a crucifix was held before them & they would at last grasping the cross cry out, "THERE'S my salvation!"

Like I tell my wife take all doctrine to suffering, especially your own certian death, THEN you will begin to see Law & Gospel very clearly - or else die a fool!

Ldh


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 23, 2005)

Great quote from Dr. White, Adam! As with most things, he put the point much better than I. Dr. White has been very kind and encouraging to me over a few years now since we began corresponding. Such a great warrior to have for Christian Orthodoxy.


----------



## AdamM (Oct 23, 2005)

Rich, I like Dr. White's work too.

Thanks!

For what it's worth, does anyone think Sproul is saying something different then the official position of the PCA in regard to ECT?



> 23rd General Assembly, 1995, 23-49, III, 5, Overture 19, pages 228 - 231.
> 
> RESPONSE TO "EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS TOGETHER"
> 
> ...








[Edited on 10-24-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> In the case of KÃ¼ng, if you should read him, be sure to read him as a critic of Rome, but not as a friend to Reformation orthodoxy. KÃ¼ng is a modern day Erasmus, nothing more.



 KÃ¼ng? Phooey! Famous KÃ¼ng quote: "There will be peace on earth when there is peace among the world religions."

[Edited on 10-25-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 25, 2005)

*On Hans KÃ¼ng*


> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Adam,
> 
> 
> ...


"œBarth was famously pro-Reformation. But was his theology truly "œEvangelical"? Were there undercurrents in his theology that brought him close to Rome? Barth early on attacked both Liberals and Romans. Yet, as Van Til cogently pointed out, the root of Barth´s theology (despite his later attempts to distance himself), and that of his early partners, and the Romans was dialecticalism. So, finally, though their conclusions differ Barth can acknowledge Hans Urs von Balthasar (Roman Catholic) as his most penetrating, understanding critic, and Hans KÃ¼ng (Roman Catholic) can say "œBarth´s basic views are not essentially different from those of the "˜old church´" " (quoting myself)

A quote from Tabletalk mag, November 1994


> KÃ¼ng's argument against the doctrine of papal infallibility was seen by some Protestant observers as a powerful biblical critique against this Roman doctrine. It was not, however, a call back to the Reformer's doctrine of _sols Scriptura_. Influenced powerfully by the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth the logic of KÃ¼ng's attack on papal infallibility could just as easily be applied to biblical infallibility. KÃ¼ng's critique was more radical than any Reformer, since he questioned whether any propositions can be said to have a definite truth content.
> KÃ¼ng was advancing a more existential notion of truth. He later wrote: "_Truth_ in the biblical sense means fidelity, permanence, reliability." True faith had little to do with maintaining the _propositional_ truth _behind_ faith. In fact, "true faith is maintained even through untrue propositions."
> ... "The Christian," he would later write,"believes not in propositions or truths, not even in the Bible, in tradition, or in the church, but in God himself and in Him whom God revealed Himself."
> ....
> KÃ¼ng's separation of faith from truth would certainly have troubled Martin Luther, for whom (in the words of J.I. Packer), "Christianity was a matter of doctrine first and foremost, because true religion was first and foremost a matter of faith; and faith is correlative to truth."


Ken Meyers


In the case of KÃ¼ng, if you should read him, be sure to read him as a critic of Rome, but not as a friend to Reformation orthodoxy. KÃ¼ng is a modern day Erasmus, nothing more.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 25, 2005)

> Shouldn't we be using Augustine, Orange and Aquinas as reference points for Catholics who don't know their own Church's heritage on Grace? Above all, we use the scripture. However, if Sola Fide is exclusive in its Reformation sense, then we must stop using or appealing to Augustine, Aquinas, Orange etc.



Good question but I think Augustine was ok on justification.
He did not teach justification exclusively to be _extra nos_ but I am unclear if that is essential or not. 

Adam, you mentioned an article on Augustines view. Do you have a link.

I just borrowed "Fath Alone" from a friend to read what Sproul is saying for myself.



[Edited on 10-25-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Herald (Oct 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Adam, I think you are correct. Teachers are held to a higher judgment. Someone could be saved by sola fide applied, without really understanding all the nuances of the doctrine itself. Sola Fide is just that, a doctrine of how the gospel is applied. God saves man by graciously giving him the gift of faith. Opening blind eyes, or deaf ears, is the analogy Christ used. But, as we mature in faith, our VISION, and HEARING improve by the illumination of the HOly Spirit and the knowledge of the scriptures. I have been a Christian since I was a young boy, and believed many a heretical doctrine along the way. We must pray for wisdom and understanding.
> I love Anselms statement _fides quaerens intellectum_, faith seeking understanding. Saving faith will always be manifested by a hunger for the word, and a deeper knowledge of Christ.



 Can't add to that.


----------

