# Christians before the Reformation



## sotzo

I was reading through some posts that were discussing the FV report from the 07 PCA GA. One gentleman said that the problem in the PCA (and others not sympathetic to FV) is an overemphasis on justification as it is articulated in the WCF. He said justification as understood by the Reformers, and as articulated in subsequent confessions like the WCF, would exclude the possibility of people before the Reformation being Christians. I'm inferring what he meant was that the Reformed doctrine of justification could not have been adopted by pre-Reformation believers because the doctrine was not understood the same way pre-Reformation.

No wonder these guys ends up in the RCC. What is a good response to this line of reasoning?


----------



## turmeric

Even Bernard of Clairveaux was able to understand that he was a sinner and that Christ died in his place and his sin was transferred to Christ and (at least) Christ's innocence was transferred to him. He wrote the humn "O Sacred Head Now Wounded" to express this.
Here are the lyrics, sorry about the guitar chords, it was the only one I could find.


----------



## RamistThomist

On one hand don't rewrite Church History to make everyone a card-carrying Protestant who clearly articulated sola fide. 1) That is plainly not the case; 2) it sort of makes Luther's work unnecessary.

But on the other hand, do not form church history and Protestant polemics in such a way that anathematizes most of church history. Robert Reymond comes very close to this in his Systematic Theology, even hinting that Augustine, Anselm, and others were...well, the jury is out on them.


----------



## JohnOwen007

This is a really good question that we Protestants need an answer for, especially because the influence of people like Scott Hahn and Bob Sungenis.

We have a quick answer to the Roman Catholic who asks us, "Where was your church before Luther?". Answer: "Where was your face before you washed it?"

The church was always there, it's just that it was in a hideously dirty state, and the reformation washed things away. But how is this so? I think a preliminary sketch looks something like this.

We need 2 distinctions.

*1. Between the gospel summarised and its implications:*

[1] The gospel can be stated in a summary form, e.g. 1 Cor. 15:3-4: that Christ died for sins, buried, and rose again (according to the Scriptures). In other words the gospel is all about salvation by Christ.

[2] We can unpack this basic summary, into further doctrines such as justification by faith alone; it guards the more important affirmation of salvation by Christ (Gal. 2:21).

[3] The RC church would affirm the basic summary of the gospel as taught in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 (and the apostles' creed). However, they _contradict it_ when one unpacks their doctrine of justification--it effectively denies Christ alone. Hence, at a surface level they seem to affirm the gospel, but as we unpack this, that contradict it at another level.


*2. Between error by ignorance or stubbornness.*

There is a key difference between error that one embraces in ignorance (i.e. one doesn't or can't see where they err) as opposed to error in stubbornness (being brought into the truth and yet still rejecting it). The latter makes one culpable in a way the former does not. New Christians embrace many errors of ignorance (especially about the Trinity!) but when they are brought to truth they will (if they are true believers) embrace it. It was years after I was converted before I understood justification by faith alone. I had weird ideas prior to this.

*Hence*:

Prior to the reformation I believe many embraced the gospel in summary / basic form (let's say in the apostles' creed) but erred in ignorance (either because they had no access to the truth, or couldn't see the implications of justification by faith) and hence were saved (if they showed signs of regeneration and repentance).

However, now that the reformation has come, and the truth of justification by faith alone has come to light, there is less chance for Roman Catholics to err in ignorance. In other words, the more a Roman Catholic knows Protestant teaching (like justification by faith alone) and continues to reject it, the less likely they could be true believers.

I think we see something of this in Galatians. They embraced a wrong doctrine of justification, however Paul believed he was writing to Christians, and called them the "churches of Galatia" (1:1). However, if they were truly converted they would read Paul's letter, be brought out of error (of ignorance) and embrace a true doctrine of justification. And for those who rejected Paul's letter they clearly showed themselves to be unbelievers (Gal. 5:2), who erred in stubborness.

Hence, we as Protestants should not be content to leave people in the Roman Catholic church, but call them out as Paul did with the Galatians (over a similar heresy) even if we suspect they may be converted.

Every blessing brother.


----------



## sotzo

> But on the other hand, do not form church history and Protestant polemics in such a way that anathematizes most of church history. Robert Reymond comes very close to this in his Systematic Theology, even hinting that Augustine, Anselm, and others were...well, the jury is out on them.



Can you elaborate on this point? Specifically, would these polemics to which you refer be saying that there were no/few Christians prior to the Reformation?

Just want to know a little more about what these folks' (like Reymond) would be trying to argue.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

Waldensian Confession of Faith, *Year **1120*

1. We believe and firmly maintain all that is contained in the twelve articles of the symbol, commonly called the apostles' creed, and we regard as heretical whatever is inconsistent with the said twelve articles.

2. We believe that there is one God - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3. We acknowledge for sacred canonical scriptures the books of the Holy Bible. (Here follows the title of each, exactly conformable to our received canon, but which it is deemed, on that account, quite unnecessary to particularize.)

4. The books above-mentioned teach us: That there is one GOD, almighty, unbounded in wisdom, and infinite in goodness, and who, in His goodness, has made all things. For He created Adam after His own image and likeness. But through the enmity of the Devil, and his own disobedience, Adam fell, sin entered into the world, and we became transgressors in and by Adam.

5. That Christ had been promised to the fathers who received the law, to the end that, knowing their sin by the law, and their unrighteousness and insufficiency, they might desire the coming of Christ to make satisfaction for their sins, and to accomplish the law by Himself.

6. That at the time appointed of the Father, Christ was born - a time when iniquity everywhere abounded, to make it manifest that it was not for the sake of any good in ourselves, for all were sinners, but that He, who is true, might display His grace and mercy towards us.

7. That Christ is our life, and truth, and peace, and righteousness - our shepherd and advocate, our sacrifice and priest, who died for the salvation of all who should believe, and rose again for their justification.

8. And we also firmly believe, that there is no other mediator, or advocate with God the Father, but Jesus Christ. And as to the Virgin Mary, she was holy, humble, and full of grace; and this we also believe concerning all other saints, namely, that they are waiting in heaven for the resurrection of their bodies at the day of judgment.

9. We also believe, that, after this life, there are but two places - one for those that are saved, the other for the damned, which [two] we call paradise and hell, wholly denying that imaginary purgatory of Antichrist, invented in opposition to the truth.

10. Moreover, we have ever regarded all the inventions of men [in the affairs of religion] as an unspeakable abomination before God; such as the festival days and vigils of saints, and what is called holy-water, the abstaining from flesh on certain days, and such like things, but above all, the masses.

11. We hold in abhorrence all human inventions, as proceeding from Antichrist, which produce distress (Alluding probably to the voluntary penances and mortification imposed by the Catholics on themselves), and are prejudicial to the liberty of the mind.

12 We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings. We regard it as proper and even necessary that believers use these symbols or visible forms when it can be done. Notwithstanding which, we maintain that believers may be saved without these signs, when they have neither place nor opportunity of observing them.

13. We acknowledge no sacraments [as of divine appointment] but baptism and the Lord's supper.

14. We honour the secular powers, with subjection, obedience, promptitude, and payment.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

sotzo said:


> I was reading through some posts that were discussing the FV report from the 07 PCA GA. One gentleman said that the problem in the PCA (and others not sympathetic to FV) is an overemphasis on justification as it is articulated in the WCF. He said justification as understood by the Reformers, and as articulated in subsequent confessions like the WCF, would exclude the possibility of people before the Reformation being Christians. I'm inferring what he meant was that the Reformed doctrine of justification could not have been adopted by pre-Reformation believers because the doctrine was not understood the same way pre-Reformation.
> 
> No wonder these guys ends up in the RCC. What is a good response to this line of reasoning?



Well - another red herring, no doubt. I'd recommend J Buchanan on 'Justification' who offers a historical survey, His book can be read here.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Taylor,

To the best of my knowledge, Valdez, a "merchant of Lyons," (later known as Waldo and then Peter Waldo) wasn't actively propagating the faith until 1170-73. This "confession" would be 50 years before Valdes/Waldo himself was teaching. He was not controversial until c. 1180. The probability of this being an authentic 12th century document seems quite low. It seems more likely that these points were drafted rather later (in the 16th century) and imputed to the "Waldensian" (Vaudois) movement(s). On which see Cameron, _The Reformation of the Heretics_ (Oxford: OUP, 1984).

Can you point us to a source for this document? 

Thanks,

rsc




TaylorOtwell said:


> Waldensian Confession of Faith, *Year **1120*
> 
> 1. We believe and firmly maintain all that is contained in the twelve articles of the symbol, commonly called the apostles' creed, and we regard as heretical whatever is inconsistent with the said twelve articles.
> 
> 2. We believe that there is one God - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> 
> 3. We acknowledge for sacred canonical scriptures the books of the Holy Bible. (Here follows the title of each, exactly conformable to our received canon, but which it is deemed, on that account, quite unnecessary to particularize.)
> 
> 4. The books above-mentioned teach us: That there is one GOD, almighty, unbounded in wisdom, and infinite in goodness, and who, in His goodness, has made all things. For He created Adam after His own image and likeness. But through the enmity of the Devil, and his own disobedience, Adam fell, sin entered into the world, and we became transgressors in and by Adam.
> 
> 5. That Christ had been promised to the fathers who received the law, to the end that, knowing their sin by the law, and their unrighteousness and insufficiency, they might desire the coming of Christ to make satisfaction for their sins, and to accomplish the law by Himself.
> 
> 6. That at the time appointed of the Father, Christ was born - a time when iniquity everywhere abounded, to make it manifest that it was not for the sake of any good in ourselves, for all were sinners, but that He, who is true, might display His grace and mercy towards us.
> 
> 7. That Christ is our life, and truth, and peace, and righteousness - our shepherd and advocate, our sacrifice and priest, who died for the salvation of all who should believe, and rose again for their justification.
> 
> 8. And we also firmly believe, that there is no other mediator, or advocate with God the Father, but Jesus Christ. And as to the Virgin Mary, she was holy, humble, and full of grace; and this we also believe concerning all other saints, namely, that they are waiting in heaven for the resurrection of their bodies at the day of judgment.
> 
> 9. We also believe, that, after this life, there are but two places - one for those that are saved, the other for the damned, which [two] we call paradise and hell, wholly denying that imaginary purgatory of Antichrist, invented in opposition to the truth.
> 
> 10. Moreover, we have ever regarded all the inventions of men [in the affairs of religion] as an unspeakable abomination before God; such as the festival days and vigils of saints, and what is called holy-water, the abstaining from flesh on certain days, and such like things, but above all, the masses.
> 
> 11. We hold in abhorrence all human inventions, as proceeding from Antichrist, which produce distress (Alluding probably to the voluntary penances and mortification imposed by the Catholics on themselves), and are prejudicial to the liberty of the mind.
> 
> 12 We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings. We regard it as proper and even necessary that believers use these symbols or visible forms when it can be done. Notwithstanding which, we maintain that believers may be saved without these signs, when they have neither place nor opportunity of observing them.
> 
> 13. We acknowledge no sacraments [as of divine appointment] but baptism and the Lord's supper.
> 
> 14. We honour the secular powers, with subjection, obedience, promptitude, and payment.


----------



## sotzo

JohnOwen007 said:


> This is a really good question that we Protestants need an answer for, especially because the influence of people like Scott Hahn and Bob Sungenis.
> 
> We have a quick answer to the Roman Catholic who asks us, "Where was your church before Luther?". Answer: "Where was your face before you washed it?"
> 
> The church was always there, it's just that it was in a hideously dirty state, and the reformation washed things away. But how is this so? I think a preliminary sketch looks something like this.
> 
> We need 2 distinctions.
> 
> *1. Between the gospel summarised and its implications:*
> 
> [1] The gospel can be stated in a summary form, e.g. 1 Cor. 15:3-4: that Christ died for sins, buried, and rose again (according to the Scriptures). In other words the gospel is all about salvation by Christ.
> 
> [2] We can unpack this basic summary, into further doctrines such as justification by faith alone; it guards the more important affirmation of salvation by Christ (Gal. 2:21).
> 
> [3] The RC church would affirm the basic summary of the gospel as taught in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 (and the apostles' creed). However, they _contradict it_ when one unpacks their doctrine of justification--it effectively denies Christ alone. Hence, at a surface level they seem to affirm the gospel, but as we unpack this, that contradict it at another level.
> 
> 
> *2. Between error by ignorance or stubbornness.*
> 
> There is a key difference between error that one embraces in ignorance (i.e. one doesn't or can't see where they err) as opposed to error in stubbornness (being brought into the truth and yet still rejecting it). The latter makes one culpable in a way the former does not. New Christians embrace many errors of ignorance (especially about the Trinity!) but when they are brought to truth they will (if they are true believers) embrace it. It was years after I was converted before I understood justification by faith alone. I had weird ideas prior to this.
> 
> *Hence*:
> 
> Prior to the reformation I believe many embraced the gospel in summary / basic form (let's say in the apostles' creed) but erred in ignorance (either because they had no access to the truth, or couldn't see the implications of justification by faith) and hence were saved (if they showed signs of regeneration and repentance).
> 
> However, now that the reformation has come, and the truth of justification by faith alone has come to light, there is less chance for Roman Catholics to err in ignorance. In other words, the more a Roman Catholic knows Protestant teaching (like justification by faith alone) and continues to reject it, the less likely they could be true believers.
> 
> I think we see something of this in Galatians. They embraced a wrong doctrine of justification, however Paul believed he was writing to Christians, and called them the "churches of Galatia" (1:1). However, if they were truly converted they would read Paul's letter, be brought out of error (of ignorance) and embrace a true doctrine of justification. And for those who rejected Paul's letter they clearly showed themselves to be unbelievers (Gal. 5:2), who erred in stubborness.
> 
> Hence, we as Protestants should not be content to leave people in the Roman Catholic church, but call them out as Paul did with the Galatians (over a similar heresy) even if we suspect they may be converted.
> 
> Every blessing brother.



So, according to this would you say that believers prior to the Reformation were saved by Christ alone, but may have been trusting in Christ "plus" or just the "plus"....and because they did it out of ignorance and not knowingly they were still saved?


----------



## Ron

> He said justification as understood by the Reformers, and as articulated in subsequent confessions like the WCF, would exclude the possibility of people before the Reformation being Christians.



One can be a true believer without having a sound articulation of the doctrine of justification. What is the case is not always known to be the case, let alone known as to the reason why it is the case. 

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## Coram Deo

Peter Waldo did not start the Valdez to which bears his name.. The movement was much older then Peter Waldo but he became a important figure head in 1180 to which the movement was associated with his name... Just like Mennonites are older then Menno Simon, but later he became the leader of the movement and those anabaptist became know as Mennonites....

Moselm, the Lutheran Historian and other Historians including the Valdez themselves have placed their origins shrouded in antiquity and ancient, possibly to the early church..... So did the Most Rev. Spurgeon......



R. Scott Clark said:


> Taylor,
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, Valdez, a "merchant of Lyons," (later known as Waldo and then Peter Waldo) wasn't actively propagating the faith until 1170-73. This "confession" would be 50 years before Valdes/Waldo himself was teaching. He was not controversial until c. 1180. The probability of this being an authentic 12th century document seems quite low. It seems more likely that these points were drafted rather later (in the 16th century) and imputed to the "Waldensian" (Vaudois) movement(s). On which see Cameron, _The Reformation of the Heretics_ (Oxford: OUP, 1984).
> 
> Can you point us to a source for this document?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TaylorOtwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Waldensian Confession of Faith, *Year **1120*
> 
> 1. We believe and firmly maintain all that is contained in the twelve articles of the symbol, commonly called the apostles' creed, and we regard as heretical whatever is inconsistent with the said twelve articles.
> 
> 2. We believe that there is one God - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> 
> 3. We acknowledge for sacred canonical scriptures the books of the Holy Bible. (Here follows the title of each, exactly conformable to our received canon, but which it is deemed, on that account, quite unnecessary to particularize.)
> 
> 4. The books above-mentioned teach us: That there is one GOD, almighty, unbounded in wisdom, and infinite in goodness, and who, in His goodness, has made all things. For He created Adam after His own image and likeness. But through the enmity of the Devil, and his own disobedience, Adam fell, sin entered into the world, and we became transgressors in and by Adam.
> 
> 5. That Christ had been promised to the fathers who received the law, to the end that, knowing their sin by the law, and their unrighteousness and insufficiency, they might desire the coming of Christ to make satisfaction for their sins, and to accomplish the law by Himself.
> 
> 6. That at the time appointed of the Father, Christ was born - a time when iniquity everywhere abounded, to make it manifest that it was not for the sake of any good in ourselves, for all were sinners, but that He, who is true, might display His grace and mercy towards us.
> 
> 7. That Christ is our life, and truth, and peace, and righteousness - our shepherd and advocate, our sacrifice and priest, who died for the salvation of all who should believe, and rose again for their justification.
> 
> 8. And we also firmly believe, that there is no other mediator, or advocate with God the Father, but Jesus Christ. And as to the Virgin Mary, she was holy, humble, and full of grace; and this we also believe concerning all other saints, namely, that they are waiting in heaven for the resurrection of their bodies at the day of judgment.
> 
> 9. We also believe, that, after this life, there are but two places - one for those that are saved, the other for the damned, which [two] we call paradise and hell, wholly denying that imaginary purgatory of Antichrist, invented in opposition to the truth.
> 
> 10. Moreover, we have ever regarded all the inventions of men [in the affairs of religion] as an unspeakable abomination before God; such as the festival days and vigils of saints, and what is called holy-water, the abstaining from flesh on certain days, and such like things, but above all, the masses.
> 
> 11. We hold in abhorrence all human inventions, as proceeding from Antichrist, which produce distress (Alluding probably to the voluntary penances and mortification imposed by the Catholics on themselves), and are prejudicial to the liberty of the mind.
> 
> 12 We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings. We regard it as proper and even necessary that believers use these symbols or visible forms when it can be done. Notwithstanding which, we maintain that believers may be saved without these signs, when they have neither place nor opportunity of observing them.
> 
> 13. We acknowledge no sacraments [as of divine appointment] but baptism and the Lord's supper.
> 
> 14. We honour the secular powers, with subjection, obedience, promptitude, and payment.
Click to expand...


----------



## Amazing Grace

sotzo said:


> I was reading through some posts that were discussing the FV report from the 07 PCA GA. One gentleman said that the problem in the PCA (and others not sympathetic to FV) is an overemphasis on justification as it is articulated in the WCF. He said justification as understood by the Reformers, and as articulated in subsequent confessions like the WCF, would exclude the possibility of people before the Reformation being Christians. I'm inferring what he meant was that the Reformed doctrine of justification could not have been adopted by pre-Reformation believers because the doctrine was not understood the same way pre-Reformation.
> 
> No wonder these guys ends up in the RCC. What is a good response to this line of reasoning?



God always has a remnant according to Grace. Men who have not knelt down to baal. Even if the light of the true Gospel is so dim, noone sees it, God can and indeed does..


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is an old post by DTK. Some of it doesn't come through since we changed the board but you can read some of what he found. I think his quotes are more numerous now but I can't seem to find them on my computer right now.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/there-no-evidence-sola-fide-church-clo-828/



> Hi Scott, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I routinely hear from many (Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox) that sola fide was unknown to the church from the writing of the New Testament until the time of Luther. People rely on this belief for many things. Catholics for the idea that Protestants are simply wrong and Protestants for the idea that the universal belief of Christ's bride on these central matters can be wrong for long periods of time.
> 
> Alister McGrath's Iusti Dei: The History of the Doctrine of Justification is often cited as proof of the absence of sola fide until the time of Luther. I have disagreed with McGrath for awhile and have been more persuaded by Thomas Oden's Justification Reader, in which he demonstrated sola fide and related doctrines in early Patristic writings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read McGrath and Oden's little book as well. While I liked Oden's attempt, I do think that his ambition falls short of proving his case. I do not think you find the present day Reformed understanding of _sola fide_ expressed in the ECFs or in the medieval period. But they do give what I would call inconsistent expressions to it, and I'll be happy to share my own study with you here.
> 
> *Clement of Rome:* Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, &iexcl;&sect;Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.&iexcl;&uml; All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. _ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,_ Chapter 32.
> 
> *Mathetes to Diognetus:* He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange (substitution)! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Savior who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honor, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food. _Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I, Mathetes to Diognetus,_ Chapter 9.
> 
> *Marius Victorinus (born c. 280, converted around 356):* Every mystery which is enacted by our Lord Jesus Christ asks only for faith. The mystery was enacted at that time for our sake and aimed at our resurrection and liberation, should we have faith in the mystery of Christ and in Christ. For the patriarchs prefigured and foretold that man would be justified from faith. Therefore, just as it was reckoned as righteousness to Abraham that he had faith, so we too, if we have faith in Christ and every mystery of his, will be sons of Abraham. Our whole life will be accounted as righteous. Epistle to the Galatians, 1.3.7. Mark J. Edwards, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 39.
> *Latin text:* Omne mysterium, quod a Domino nostro Jesu Christo actum est, fidem solam quaerit: fuit enim pro nobis actum, et in nostram resurrectionem actum et liberationem, si fidem in mysterium Christi et in Christum habeamus. Hoc enim praelusit divinitas et praemisit, ut ex fide homo justificaretur. Ut reputatum est igitur Abrahae ad justitiam, quia fidem habuit; sic et nos, si fidem habemus in Christum ejusque mysterium, erimus filii Abrahae, id est reputabitur nobis omnis vita ad justitiam. _In Epistolam Pauli Ad Galatas, Liber Primus,_ Cap. III, PL 8:1169A.
> 
> *Chrysostom (349-407):* The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of faith alone: before circumcision, the text says, &iexcl;&sect;Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.&iexcl;&uml; _Fathers of the Church,_ Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 27.7 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 167.
> 
> *Chrysostom (349-407):* For if even before this, the circumcision was made uncircumcision, much rather was it now, since it is cast out from both periods. But after saying that &iexcl;&sect;it was excluded,&iexcl;&uml; he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? &iexcl;&sect;By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.&iexcl;&uml; See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the &iexcl;&sect;law of faith?&iexcl;&uml; It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God&iexcl;&brvbar;s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. _NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans,_ Homily 7, vs. 27.
> 
> *Chrysostom (349-407):* For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light. _NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans,_ Homily 8, Rom. 4:1, 2.
> 
> *Chrysostom (349-407):* And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. _NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Commentary on Galatians,_ 3:8.
> 
> *Chrysostom (349-407) same passage above:* For they said that the one who does not keep the law is cursed, while he shows that the one who strives to keep it is cursed and the one who does not strive to keep it is blessed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. Homily on Galatians 3.9-10. Mark J. Edwards, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 40. 3:8. See also John Chrysostom. F. Field, ed. _Interpretatio omnium Epistolarum Paulinarum per Homilias Facta_ (Oxford J. H. Parker, 1845-1862), 4:7-8.
> 
> *Chrysostom (349-407):* God&iexcl;&brvbar;s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith&iexcl;&brvbar;s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent. Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9. Mark J. Edwards, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 134. See also John Chrysostom. F. Field, ed. _Interpretatio omnium Epistolarum Paulinarum per Homilias Facta_ (Oxford J. H. Parker, 1845-1862), 2:160.
> 
> *Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), wrote while commenting upon 1 Cor. 1:4b:* God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VII: 1-2 Corinthians_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 6.
> *Latin Text:* Datam dicit gratiam a Deo in Christo Jesu, quae gratia sic data est in Christo Jesu; quia hoc constitutum est a Deo, ut qui credit in Christum, salvus sit sine opere: sola fide gratis accipit remissionem peccatorum. _In Epistolam B. Pauli Ad Corinthios Primam,_ PL 17:185.
> 
> *Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 1:11:* For the mercy of God had been given for this reason, that they should cease from the works of the law, as I have often said, because God, taking pity on our weaknesses, decreed that the human race would be saved by faith alone, along with the natural law. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 23.
> *Latin Text:* Nam misericordia Dei ad hoc data est, ut Lex cessaret, quod saepe jam dixi; quia Deus consulens infirmitati humanae, sola fide addita legi naturali, hominum genus salvare decrevit. _In Epistolam Ad Romanos,_ PL 17:53.
> 
> *Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 2:12:* For if the law is given not for the righteous but for the unrighteous, whoever does not sin is a friend of the law. For him faith alone is the way by which he is made perfect. For others mere avoidance of evil will not gain them any advantage with God unless they also believe in God, so that they may be righteous on both counts. For the one righteousness is temporal; the other is eternal. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 65.
> *Latin Text:* Si enim justo non est lex posita, sed injustis; qui non peccat, amicus legis est. Huic sola fides deest, per quam fiat perfectus quia nihil illi proderit apud Deum abstinere a contrariis, nisi fidem in Deum acceperit, ut sit justus per utraque; quia illa temporis justitia est, haec aeternitatis. _In Epistolam Ad Romanos,_ PL 17:67.
> 
> *Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:24:* They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 101.
> *Latin Text:* Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicem reddentes, sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei. _In Epistolam Ad Romanos,_ PL 17:79.
> 
> *Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:27:* Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast basing themselves on the law and claiming to be of the race of Abraham, seeing that no one is justified before God except by faith. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 103.
> *Latin Text:* Ubi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? factorum? Non, sed per legem fidei. Reddita ratione, ad eos loquitur, qui agunt sub lege, quod sine causa glorientur, blandientes sibi de lege, et propter quod genus sint Abrahae, videntes non justificari hominem apud Deum, nisi per fidem. _In Epistolam Ad Romanos,_ PL 17:80.
> 
> *Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:5:* How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 112.
> *Latin Text:* Hoc dicit, quia sine operibus legis credenti impio, id est gentili, in Christum, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam, sicut et Abrahae. Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera legis justificari se putant justificatione Abrahae; cum videant Abraham non per opera legis, sed sola fide justificatum? Non ergo opus est lex, quando impius per solam fidem justificatur apud Deum. _In Epistolam Ad Romanos,_ PL 17:82-83.
> 
> *Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:6, &iexcl;&yen;righteousness apart from works&iexcl;&brvbar;:* Paul backs this up by the example of the prophet David, who says that those are blessed of whom God has decreed that, without work or any keeping of the law, they are justified before God by faith alone. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 113.
> *Latin Text:* Hoc ipsum munit exemplo prophetae. Beatitudinem hominis, cui Deus accepto fert justitiam sine operibus. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus, ut sine labore et aliqua observatione, sola fide justificentur apud Deum. _In Epistolam Ad Romanos,_ PL 17:83.
> 
> *Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428), commenting on Rom. 3:28:* Paul did not say we hold because he was himself uncertain. He said it in order to counter those who concluded from this that anyone who wished to could be justified simply by willing faith. Note carefully that Paul does not say simply without the law, as if we could perform virtue by wanting to, nor do we the works of the law by force. We do them because we have been led to do them by Christ. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), pp. 104-105.
> 
> *Oecumenius (6th century), commenting on James 2:23:* Abraham is the image of someone who is justified by faith alone, since what he believed was credited to him as righteousness. But he is also approved because of his works, since he offered up his son Isaac on the altar. Of course he did not do this work by itself; in doing it, he remained firmly anchored in his faith, believing that through Isaac his seed would be multiplied until it was as numerous as the stars. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 33. See PG 119:481.
> 
> *Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3:* God justifies by faith alone.
> *Latin text:* Deus ex sola fide justificat: _In Epistolam Ad Romanos_, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D.
> 
> *Jerome (347-420):* He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever. Jacques Le Goff, _The Birth of Purgatory,_ trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 61.
> *Latin text: *Qui enim tota mente in Christo confidit, etiamsi, ut homo lapsus, mortuus fuerit in peccato, fide sua vivit in perpetuum. _Epistola CXIX, Ad Minervium et Alexandrum Monachos,_ &iexcl;&plusmn;7, PL 22:973.
> 
> *Pope Boniface to Caesarius:* [Phil. 1:29]--it appears obvious that our faith in Christ, like all good things, comes to individuals from the gift of divine grace and not from the power of human nature. We rejoice that your brotherhood perceived this truth in accordance with catholic faith, when a council of some bishops of Gaul was held. As you have indicated, they decided unanimously that our faith in Christ is conferred on men by the intervention of divine grace. They added that there is absolutely nothing good in God&iexcl;&brvbar;s eyes that anyone can wish, begin, do, or complete without the grace of God, for as our Savior said, &iexcl;&sect;Without me you can do nothing&iexcl;&uml; [John 15:5]. For it is both a certainty and an article of catholic faith that in all good things, the greatest of which is faith, divine mercy intervenes for us when we are not yet willing [to believe], so that we might become willing; it remains in us when we are willing [to believe]; and it follows us so that we remain in faith.
> William E. Klingshirn, trans., _Caesarius of Arles: Life, Testament, Letters, Letter 20 - Pope Boniface to Caesarius,_ &iexcl;&plusmn;2 (Liverpool: University Press, 1994), p. 125.
> 
> *Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444):* Seeing then that the law condemned sinners and sometimes imposed the supreme penalty on those who disregarded it and was in no way merciful, how was the appointment of a truly compassionate and merciful high priest not necessary for those on earth &iexcl;X one who would abrogate the curse, check the legal process, and free the sinners with forgiving grace and commands based on gentleness? &iexcl;&yen;I,&iexcl;&brvbar; says the text, &iexcl;&yen;I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins&iexcl;&brvbar; (Is. 43:25). For we are justified by faith, not by works of the law, as Scripture says (Gal. 2:16).
> By faith in whom, then, are we justified? Is it not in him who suffered death according to the flesh for our sake? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ? See his Against Nestorius in Norman Russell, Cyril of Alexandria (London: Rutledge, 2000), p. 165.
> 
> *Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444):* For truly the compassion from beside the Father is Christ, as he takes away the sins, dismisses the charges and justifies by faith, and recovers the lost and makes [them] stronger than death. For what is good and he does not give? Therefore the knowledge of God is better than sacrifice and holocausts, as it is brought to perfection in Christ. For by him and in him we have known the Father, and we have become rich in the justification by faith. _Commentary on Hosea._ Alberto Ferreiro, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XIV: The Twelve Prophets_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), p. 29. See Migne PG 71:168; and Eugen J. Pentiuc, _Long-Suffering Love: A Commentary on Hosea with Patristic Annotations_ (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2002), p. 100.
> 
> *Bede (672/673-735), commenting on Paul and James:* Although the apostle Paul preached that we are justified by faith without works, those who understand by this that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith, have made a great mistake. James here expounds how Paul&iexcl;&brvbar;s words ought to be understood. This is why he uses the example of Abraham, whom Paul also used as an example of faith, to show that the patriarch also performed good works in the light of his faith. It is therefore wrong to interpret Paul in such a way as to suggest that it did not matter whether Abraham put his faith into practice or not. What Paul meant was that no one obtains the gift of justification on the basis of merits derived from works performed beforehand, because the gift of justification comes only from faith. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI: James, 1-2Peter, 1-3 John, Jude_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 31.
> *Latin text:* Quoniam Paulus apostolus praedicans justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus, non bene intellectus est ab eis qui sic dictum acceperunt, ut putarent, cum semel in Christum credidissent, etiam si male operarentur, et facinorose flagitioseque viverent, salvos se esse per fidem: locus iste hujus epistolae eumdem sensum Pauli apostoli quomodo sit intelligendus exponit. Ideoque magis Abrahae exemplo utitur, vacuam esse fidem si non bene operetur, quoniam Abrahae exemplo etiam Paulus usus est, ut probaret justificari hominem sine operibus posse. Cum enim bona opera commemorat Abrahae, quae ejus fidem comitata sunt, satis ostendit apostolum Paulum, non ita per Abraham docere justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus, ut si quis crediderit, non ad eum pertineat bene operari, sed ad hoc potius, ut nemo arbitretur meritis priorum bonorum operum se pervenisse ad donum justificationis quae est in fide. _Super Divi Jacobi Epistolam,_ Caput II, PL 93:22.
> 
> *Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) commenting on Matthew 20:7:* Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith. George Finch, _A Sketch of the Romish Controversy_ (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 230.
> *Latin text:* Merces quidem ex dono nulla est, quia debetur ex opere; sed gratuitam gratiam Deus omnibus ex fidei justificatione donavit: _Sancti Hilarii In Evangelium Matthaei Commentarius,_ Caput XX, &iexcl;&plusmn;7, PL 9:1030.
> 
> *Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-67) commenting on Matthew 25:9:* No one can be aided by the good works or merits of others, because each must buy oil for his own lamp. George Finch, _A Sketch of the Romish Controversy_ (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 230.
> *Latin text:* alienis scilicet operibus ac meritis neminem adjuvandum, quia uniquique lampadi suae emere oleum sit necesse. _Sancti Hilarii In Evangelium Matthaei Commentarius,_ Caput XXVII, &iexcl;&plusmn;5, PL 9:1060-1061.
> 
> *Basil of Caesarea (329-379):* Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been, ƒ&Ocirc;ƒ&Otilde;ƒ&Ocirc;ƒ&Ugrave;ƒ&Ucirc;ƒ&Ntilde ;ƒ&Ugrave;ƒ&ccedil;ƒ&Yacute;ƒ&Otilde;ƒ&aelig;ƒ&though RN;ƒ&szlig;ƒ&THORN justified solely by faith in Christ.
> See Chemnitz, _Examination of the Council of Trent,_ Part 1, p. 505, and ƒnHomilia XX, Homilia De Humilitate, &iexcl;&plusmn;3, PG 31:529 for the Greek text. In context, Basil appealed to the example of the Apostle Paul as a regenerate man in Philippians 3:8-9.
> 
> *Ambrose (c. 339-97):* Thus I do not have the wherewithal to enable me to glory in my own works, I do not have the wherewithal to boast of myself, and so I will glory in Christ. I will not glory because I have been redeemed. I will not glory because I am free of sins, but because sins have been forgiven me. I will not glory because I am profitable or because anyone is profitable to me, but because Christ is an advocate in my behalf with the Father, because the blood of Christ has been poured out in my behalf. _FC, Vol. 65, Saint Ambrose, Seven Exegetical Works, Jacob and the Happy Life,_ Book 1, &iexcl;&plusmn;6.21 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1972), p. 133.
> *Ambrose (c. 339-97):* I have nothing, therefore, whereby I may glory in my works; I have nothing to boast of, and, therefore, I will glory in Christ. I will not glory because I am righteous, but because I am redeemed. I will not glory because I am free from sin, but because my sins are pardoned. I will not glory because I have done good to any one, or any one has done good to me, but because Christ is my advocate with the Father, and because Christ&iexcl;&brvbar;s blood was shed for me. George Finch, _A Sketch of the Romish Controversy_ (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 220.
> *Latin text:* Non habeo igitur unde gloriari in operibus meis possim, non habeo unde me jactem; et ideo gloriabor in Christo. Non gloriabor quia justus sum: sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum. Gloriabor, non quia vacuus peccatis sum, sed quia mihi remissa sunt peccata. Non gloriabor quia profui, neque quia profuit mihi quisquam: sed quia pro me advocatus apud Patrem Christus est: sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est. _De Jacob et Vita beata_, Caput VI, &iexcl;&plusmn;21, PL 14:607.
> 
> [b:]Ambrose (c. 339-97):[/b] Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted. George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 220.
> *Latin text:* Et ideo nemo glorietur in operibus, quia nemo factis suis justificatur: sed qui justus est, donatum habet, quia per lavacrum justificatus est. Fides ergo est quae liberat per sanguinem Christi; quia beatus ille cui peccatum remittitur, et venia donatur. _Epistola LXXIII, &iexcl;&plusmn;11,_ PL 16:1254.
> 
> *Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):* The sacraments of the New Law however, although they are material elements, are not needy elements; hence they can justify. Again, if there were any in the Old Law who were just, they were not made just by the works of the Law but only by the faith of Christ &iexcl;&sect;Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith,&iexcl;&uml; as is said in Romans (3:25). Hence the sacraments of the Old Law were certain protestations of the faith of Christ, just as our sacraments are, but not in the same way, because those sacraments were configured to the grace of Christ as to something that lay in the future; our sacraments, however, testify as things containing a grace that is present. Therefore, he says significantly, that it is not by the works of the law that we are justified, but by the faith of Christ, because, although some who observed the works of the Law in times past were made just, nevertheless, this was effected only by the faith of Jesus Christ. St. Thomas Aquinas, _Commentary on Saint Paul&iexcl;&brvbar;s Epistle to the Galations,_ trans. F. R. Larcher, O.P. (Albany: Magi Books, Inc., 1966), Chapter 2, Lecture 4, (Gal. 2:15-16), pp. 54-55.
> 
> *Augustine (354-430):* Having now to the best of my ability, and as I think sufficiently, replied to the reasonings of this author, if I be asked what is my own opinion in this matter, I answer, after carefully pondering the question, that in the Gospels and Epistles, and the entire collection of books for our instruction called the New Testament, I see that fasting is enjoined. But I do not discover any rule definitely laid down by the Lord or by the apostles as to days on which we ought or ought not to fast. And by this I am persuaded that exemption from fasting on the seventh day is more suitable, not indeed to obtain, but to foreshadow, that eternal rest in which the true Sabbath is realized, and which is obtained only by faith, and by that righteousness whereby the daughter of the King is all glorious within. _NPNF1: Vol. 1, Letter 36, &iexcl;&plusmn;25._
> 
> *Augustine (354-430):* Not so our father Abraham. This passage of scripture is meant to draw our attention to the difference. We confess that the holy patriarch was pleasing to God; this is what our faith affirms about him. So true is it that we can declare and be certain that he did have grounds for pride before God, and this is what the apostle tells us. It is quite certain, he says, and we know it for sure, that Abraham has grounds for pride before God. But if he had been justified by works, he would have had grounds for pride, but not before God. However, since we know he does have grounds for pride before God, it follows that he was not justified on the basis of works. So if Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified?&iexcl;&uml; The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3; Gn 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification
> 3. Now when you hear this statement, that justification comes not from works, but by faith, remember the abyss of which I spoke earlier. You see that Abraham was justified not by what he did, but by his faith: all right then, so I can do whatever I like, because even though I have no good works to show, but simply believe in God, that is reckoned to me as righteousness? Anyone who has said this and has decided on it as a policy has already fallen in and sunk; anyone who is still considering it and hesitating is in mortal danger. But God's scripture, truly understood, not only safeguards an endangered person, but even hauls up a drowned one from the deep.
> My advice is, on the face of it, a contradiction of what the apostle says; what I have to say about Abraham is what we find in the letter of another apostle, who set out to correct people who had misunderstood Paul. James in his letter opposed those who would not act rightly but relied on faith alone; and so he reminded them of the good works of this same Abraham whose faith was commended by Paul. The two apostles are not contradicting each other. James dwells on an action performed by Abraham that we all know about: he offered his son to God as a sacrifice. That is a great work, but it proceeded from faith. I have nothing but praise for the superstructure of action, but I see the foundation of faith; I admire the good work as a fruit, but I recognize that it springs from the root of faith. If Abraham had done it without right faith it would have profited him nothing, however noble the work was. On the other hand, if Abraham had been so complacent in his faith that, on hearing God's command to offer his son as a sacrificial victim, he had said to himself, &iexcl;&sect;No, I won't. But I believe that God will set me free, even if I ignore his orders,&iexcl;&uml; his faith would have been a dead faith because it did not issue in right action, and it would have remained a barren, dried-up root that never produced fruit. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., _WSA,_ Part 3, Vol. 15, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., _Expositions of the Psalms 1-32_, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, &iexcl;&plusmn;2-4 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), pp. 364-365.
> 
> *Augustine (354-430):* But what about the person who does no work (Rom 4:5)? Think here of some godless sinner, who has no good works to show. What of him or her? What if such a person comes to believe in God who justifies the impious? People like that are impious because they accomplish nothing good; they may seem to do good things, but their actions cannot truly be called good, because performed without faith. But when someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., _WSA,_ Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., _Expositions of the Psalms 1-32,_ Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, &iexcl;&plusmn;7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 370.
> 
> *Chrysostom (349-407):* &quot;For he makes a wide distinction between &iexcl;&yen;commandments&iexcl;&brvbar; and &iexcl;&yen;ordinances.&iexcl;&brvbar; He either then means &iexcl;&yen;faith,&iexcl;&brvbar; calling that an &iexcl;&yen;ordinance,&iexcl;&brvbar; (for by faith alone He saved us,) or he means &iexcl;&yen;precept,&iexcl;&brvbar; such as Christ gave, when He said, &iexcl;&yen;But I say unto you, that ye are not to be angry at all.&iexcl;&brvbar; (Matthew 5:22.) That is to say, &iexcl;&yen;If thou shalt believe that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.&iexcl;&brvbar; (Romans 10:6-9.) And again, &iexcl;&yen;The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart. Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven, or who shall descend into the abyss?&iexcl;&brvbar; or, who hath &iexcl;&yen;brought. Him again from the dead?&iexcl;&brvbar; Instead of a certain manner of life, He brought in faith. For that He might not save us to no purpose, He both Himself underwent the penalty, and also required of men the faith that is by doctrines&quot; _NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Ephesians_, Homly 5, Ephesians 2:11,12.
> 
> *Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398):* But how can some say that because the spirit which gives life to the body is more honorable than the body, therefore works are more honorable than faith? I have looked into this matter in some detail and shall try to explain my position on this. It is undoubtedly true that the spirit is nobler than the body, but this does not mean that works can be put before faith, because a person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 34. See PG 39:1732, from his Commentary on James, 2:26b.
> 
> *Andreas (c. seventh century):* Now someone might object to this and say: &iexcl;&sect;Did Paul not use Abraham as an example of someone who was justified by faith, without works. And here James is using the very same Abraham as an example of someone who was justified not by faith alone, but also by works which confirm that faith?&iexcl;&uml; How can we answer this? And how can Abraham be an example of faith without works, as well as of faith with works, at the same time? But the solution is ready to hand from the Scriptures. For the same Abraham is at different times an example of both kinds of faith. The first is prebaptismal faith, which does not require works but only confession and the word of salvation, by which those who believe in Christ are justified. The second is postbaptismal faith, which is combined with works. Understood in this way, the two apostles do not contradict one another, but one and the same Spirit is speaking through both of them. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 32. See J. A. Cramer, ed., _Catena in Epistolas Catholicas_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1840), 16, where he is commenting on James 2:21.
> 
> *Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (c. 467-532) commenting on Eph. 2:8a:* The blessed Paul argues that we are saved by faith, which he declares to be not from us but a gift from God. Thus there cannot possibly be true salvation where there is no true faith, and, since this faith is divinely enabled, it is without doubt bestowed by his free generosity. Where there is true belief through true faith, true salvation certainly accompanies it. Anyone who departs from true faith will not possess the grace of true salvation. _On the Incarnation,_ 1. Mark J. Edwards, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), pp. 133-134.
> *Latin text:* Nam quia idem beatus Paulus gratia nos dicit salvos factos esse per fidem, quam non ex nobis, sed Dei asserit donum utique vera salus non erit ubi vera fides non fuerit; quae cum divinitus infunditur, procul dubio gratuita largitate donatur; et ubi per veram fidem veritas fuerit credulitatis, veritas utique comitabitur et salutis: quisquis autem a vera fide deviaverit, verae salutis gratiam non habebit. Proinde torpere non debet fidelis animus ad quaerendum si quid in sacramento fidei sibi cernit ambiguum: maxime in mysterio dominicae incarnationis, per quam justitia impiis, vita mortuis, salus infirmis, et verae libertatis est gratia donata captivis. _De incarnatione Filii Dei,_ 1, PL 65:573.
> 
> In his commentary on Romans, the Jesuit, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., comments that Luther was not the first to invoke sola fide in his translation of Romans. Others used the term in a broader context as well. See pp. 360-361 of his _Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series_ (New York: Doubleday, 1993).
> 
> My studies in this area are on-going.
> 
> 
> Sola Scriptura est norma normans non normata
> David T. King, pastor
> Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
> Elkton, Maryland
> Augustine (354-430): Therefore what He [i.e., Christ] has deigned to speak to us, we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked, gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate XXII, Â§1.
Click to expand...


----------



## JohnOwen007

sotzo said:


> So, according to this would you say that believers prior to the Reformation were saved by Christ alone, but may have been trusting in Christ "plus" or just the "plus"....and because they did it out of ignorance and not knowingly they were still saved?



I'd say that prior to the reformation there would've been people who believed the basic gospel of 1 Cor. 15:3-4 or as presented in the apostles creed but were muddled about all sorts of doctrines (like justification) in their ignorance. However this did not mean they couldn't be saved. We're not saved by believing in justification by faith alone. However, when that doctrine comes to us, someone who is saved *will* believe it. People prior to the reformation did not have that luxury.


----------



## JohnOwen007

thunaer said:


> Peter Waldo did not start the Valdez to which bears his name.. The movement was much older then Peter Waldo but he became a important figure head in 1180 to which the movement was associated with his name... Just like Mennonites are older then Menno Simon, but later he became the leader of the movement and those anabaptist became know as Mennonites....
> 
> Moselm, the Lutheran Historian and other Historians including the Valdez themselves have placed their origins shrouded in antiquity and ancient, possibly to the early church..... So did the Most Rev. Spurgeon......



Dear Thunaer,

You've made this claim before, and I requested for sources proving it, but alas you never answered my request. I find it difficult to believe the above until I can see some primary sources. Could you point me to any?

God bless.


----------



## JohnOwen007

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Here is an old post by DTK. Some of it doesn't come through since we changed the board but you can read some of what he found. I think his quotes are more numerous now but I can't seem to find them on my computer right now.



Dear Martin,

Thanks for all these quotes. However, it must be remembered that we need to be careful not to read later ideas into earlier sources. Words like justification, faith, works, all took on very different meanings for different authors, meanings quite different to how we reformed would understand them.

Secondly, we also have to reckon with the fact that baptismal regeneration was believed from a very early time, alongside all these statements about justification, works, and faith. Baptismal regeneration remained unquestioned until the reformation (a part from a few dissidents like the Lollards _et. al._).

Blessings.


----------



## sotzo

> I'd say that prior to the reformation there would've been people who believed the basic gospel of 1 Cor. 15:3-4 or as presented in the apostles creed but were muddled about all sorts of doctrines (like justification) in their ignorance. However this did not mean they couldn't be saved. We're not saved by believing in justification by faith alone. However, when that doctrine comes to us, someone who is saved *will* believe it. People prior to the reformation did not have that luxury.



Marty:

Thanks...kindly bear with me as I continue to try to work this out.

When you say, "We're not saved by believing in justification by faith alone", I take you to mean that we are saved by the imputed righteousness of Christ rather than our holding to a doctrine. However, when you say, "However, when that doctrine comes to us, someone who is saved *will* believe it" I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that in the _ordo solutis_ one will believe in Christ for salvation, followed by an assent to the truth of the doctrine of justification by faith alone? If that is what you mean, is it possible that one can believe in Christ, followed by not believing in justification by faith alone and still be saved?

What I'm trying to understand is whether ignorance of the doctrine is ground for pardon whereas knowledge of the doctrine and not assenting to it is ground for non-pardon regardless of what one professes about faith in Christ (i.e., as in the RCC where there is a cooperation with grace needed, yet belief in Christ's death, burial, resurrection on behalf of sinners is maintained).


----------



## DTK

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Martin,
> 
> Thanks for all these quotes. However, it must be remembered that we need to be careful not to read later ideas into earlier sources. Words like justification, faith, works, all took on very different meanings for different authors, meanings quite different to how we reformed would understand them.
> 
> Secondly, we also have to reckon with the fact that baptismal regeneration was believed from a very early time, alongside all these statements about justification, works, and faith. Baptismal regeneration remained unquestioned until the reformation (a part from a few dissidents like the Lollards _et. al._).
> 
> Blessings.


I don't recall either Martin or myself suggesting the reading of later ideas into earlier sources. And I am quite confident that I explicitly stated that the ECFs were very inconsistent in their expressions. Now, indeed, Baptismal regeneration was very widespread prior to the Reformation, but now the burden of proof is on you to make good the claim that it "remained unquestioned until the reformation." That is simply speculation, and assumes without warrant that one has access to all earlier sources, much of which no longer even exists.

DTK


----------



## cih1355

Did Saint Patrick believe in justification by faith alone? What about the monks who founded the monastery at Iona?


----------



## JohnOwen007

sotzo said:


> Thanks...kindly bear with me as I continue to try to work this out.



No worries, it's an important question.



sotzo said:


> When you say, "We're not saved by believing in justification by faith alone", I take you to mean that we are saved by the imputed righteousness of Christ rather than our holding to a doctrine.



Yes, absolutely.



sotzo said:


> However, when you say, "However, when that doctrine comes to us, someone who is saved *will* believe it" I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that in the _ordo solutis_ one will believe in Christ for salvation, followed by an assent to the truth of the doctrine of justification by faith alone?



Sorry I was ambiguous. What I mean is that one can be saved without understanding justification by faith alone, as say people before Luther.

However, when justification by faith comes to light (through a Martin Luther or whoever) then the person who is truly saved, when they actually hear it and comprehend it, they *will* embrace it as truth.



sotzo said:


> If that is what you mean, is it possible that one can believe in Christ, followed by not believing in justification by faith alone and still be saved?



Yes, I would think so.



sotzo said:


> What I'm trying to understand is whether ignorance of the doctrine is ground for pardon whereas knowledge of the doctrine and not assenting to it is ground for non-pardon regardless of what one professes about faith in Christ (i.e., as in the RCC where there is a cooperation with grace needed, yet belief in Christ's death, burial, resurrection on behalf of sinners is maintained).



Yes I would agree with this. I think people who can confess the Trinity, yet consciously reject justification by faith alone are in a perilous state. They are rejecting the gospel, because faith alone undergirds and secures Christ alone.

Every blessing brother.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear David,

Thanks for your concerns.



DTK said:


> I don't recall either Martin or myself suggesting the reading of later ideas into earlier sources. And I am quite confident that I explicitly stated that the ECFs were very inconsistent in their expressions.



Sorry brother, I wasn't suggesting that you made such a claim. Rather, I was just putting out a flag or qualification to help people make sense of the quotes. I wasn't saying anything about your particular take on them, just making a comment to help others when they read them.



DTK said:


> Now, indeed, Baptismal regeneration was very widespread prior to the Reformation, but now the burden of proof is on you to make good the claim that it "remained unquestioned until the reformation." That is simply speculation, and assumes without warrant that one has access to all earlier sources, much of which no longer even exists.



Yes, there's no way I can prove that, no living person could single-handedly check it out for themselves. However, in all the study which Protestants have done of the sources prior to Luther, nothing really clear has come to light that I know of, or have read about apart from people like Wyclif and Lollards, and one or two others. Hence, it's not "simply speculation" but an informed guess. Had such crucial information been uncovered it would be well-known in the Protestant world.

Many pre-Reformation theologians speak as if justification by faith alone is true, however when you read the rest of their writings they also believed in baptismal regeneration (as well as other sacramental anomalies). So we must be careful with selective quotations. Bernard of Clairvaux is a case in point.

The problem is that lots of Protestants think there's always been a pure stream of believers from Paul to Luther who believed in justification by faith alone (as I once did). However, to my great confusion when I went to seminary and started reading the sources I couldn't find evidence to bare this out.

One figure I'm looking forward to reading more of is the medieval bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grossesteste (1175-1273). I haven't had access to his writings as yet. He: believed in _sola Scriptura_, believed that the priest's job was not saying Mass but preaching the word, studied the Bible in Greek and Hebrew (unlike most at that time), and called the Pope the "Anti-Christ". He was an influence on Thomas Bradwardine, who in turn influenced John Wyclif.

God bless you David, and keep up the good hunting work on the sources.


----------

