Basil of Caesarea on justification

Status
Not open for further replies.

DTK

Puritan Board Junior
I think I have posted this quote before, but have never been satisfied with the quote as rendered in Chemnitz, so I have added to the translation offered there to give a fuller rendering of Basil's text. The bracketed words are my addition to the translation given in Chemnitz of what Basil wrote.

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): [As the Apostle says,] Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, [I say that] Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, [and] redemption, that, as it is written, “he who boasts, let him boast in the Lord.” [For] 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, δεδικαιωμένον, perfect passive participle, accusative, masculine of δικαιόω) justified solely by faith in Christ. See Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), p. 505.

Greek text: Λέγει δὲ ὁ Ἀπόστολος• Ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω, λέγω ὅτι Χριστὸς ἡμῖν ἐγενήθη σοφία ἀπὸ Θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις• ἵνα καθὼς γέγραπται, Ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. Αὕτη γὰρ δὴ ἡ τελεία καὶ ὁλόκληρος καύχησις ἐν Θεῳ, ὅτε μήτε ἐπὶ δικαιοσύνῃ τις ἐπαίρεται τῇ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλʼ ἔγνω μὲν ἐνδεῆ ὄντα ἑαυτὸν δικαιοσύνης ἀληθοῦς, πίστει δὲ μόνῃ τῇ εἰς Χριστὸν δεδικαιωμένον. Homilia XX, Homilia De Humilitate, §3, PG 31:529. In context, Basil appealed to the example of the Apostle Paul as a regenerate man.

DTK
 

wturri78

Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for the quote, DTK.

For more insight, how would Basil have defined "justification?" Would he have understood it in the forensic-imputation sense, or in the "making righteous in a way that the Reformed might call Sanctification" sense?

I've seen Catholics write that we're justified solely by faith in Christ, but they define the term quite differently.
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Pastor King,

Melanchthon referred to that passage several times as well; here is his translation of it:
Dicet autem Apostolus, "Qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur", dicens quod "Christus nobis factus sit sapientia a Deo, iustitia, sanctificatio et redepmtio, ut sicut scriptum est, gloriaturus in Domino glorietur." Haec est enim perfecta et integra gloriatio in Deo, quando ne quidem propter iustitiam suam aliquis effertur, sed agnoscit sibi deesse veram iustitiam, fide autem sola in Christum iustificari, et gloriatur Paulus se despicere suam iustitiam, quaerere autem fide per Christum iustitiam quae ex Deo est. (Taken from Meijering's Melanchthon and Patristic Thought -- didn't feel like tracking it down directly.

Meijering notes Melanchthon's choice of iustificari to translate δεδικαιωμένον, instead of iustificatum esse, to suit his purposes, also noting in a footnote that Melanchthon translated δεδικαιωμένον more literally as iustificatum esse elsewhere.

Just as a side note of potential interest, I believe I have also encountered reference to this Basil quote in Vermigli (I think his commentary on Romans, but I don't have time to confirm at the moment).
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/there-no-evidence-sola-fide-church-clo-828/#post20911

DTK put this on the board a few years ago. I had to go through and fix the Bulletin Board Code so it would look right.

I think the quote he mentions is in this post. I really appreciated his work on putting this on the board when he did it.

Thanks DTK.

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, ¡§Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.¡¨ 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, ¡§Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.¡¨ 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 ¡§it was excluded,¡¨ he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? ¡§By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.¡¨ See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the ¡§law of faith?¡¨ It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God¡¦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¡¦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¡¦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, ¡¥righteousness apart from works¡¦: 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.
[b:]Latin text:[/b] 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, ¡±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¡¦s eyes that anyone can wish, begin, do, or complete without the grace of God, for as our Savior said, ¡§Without me you can do nothing¡¨ [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, ¡±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 ¡X one who would abrogate the curse, check the legal process, and free the sinners with forgiving grace and commands based on gentleness? ¡¥I,¡¦ says the text, ¡¥I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins¡¦ (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., [i:6a1ae9ec07]Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XIV: The Twelve Prophets[/i] (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¡¦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, ¡±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, ¡±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, ƒÔƒÕƒÔƒÙƒÛƒ&Ntilde ;ƒÙƒçƒÝƒÕƒæƒ&though RN;ƒßƒ&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, ¡±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, ¡±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¡¦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, ¡±21, PL 14:607.

Ambrose (c. 339-97): 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, ¡±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 ¡§Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith,¡¨ 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¡¦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, ¡±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?¡¨ 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, ¡§No, I won't. But I believe that God will set me free, even if I ignore his orders,¡¨ 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, ¡±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, ¡±7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 370.

Chrysostom (349-407): "For he makes a wide distinction between ¡¥commandments¡¦ and ¡¥ordinances.¡¦ He either then means ¡¥faith,¡¦ calling that an ¡¥ordinance,¡¦ (for by faith alone He saved us,) or he means ¡¥precept,¡¦ such as Christ gave, when He said, ¡¥But I say unto you, that ye are not to be angry at all.¡¦ (Matthew 5:22.) That is to say, ¡¥If thou shalt believe that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.¡¦ (Romans 10:6-9.) And again, ¡¥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?¡¦ or, who hath ¡¥brought. Him again from the dead?¡¦ 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" 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: ¡§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?¡¨ 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.
 

DTK

Puritan Board Junior
For more insight, how would Basil have defined "justification?" Would he have understood it in the forensic-imputation sense, or in the "making righteous in a way that the Reformed might call Sanctification" sense?

I've seen Catholics write that we're justified solely by faith in Christ, but they define the term quite differently.
Romanists do define the term differently, and I do think we need to be careful about reading a "forensic imputation" sense back into Basil's meaning. But neither would Basil have interpreted δικαιόω as "making one righteous" as a member of the ancient Eastern Church. In context, his sermon is "On Humility," and one may very well question how far he pursued his own words as to their implications. Yet Basil does distinguish between "one's own righteousness" (δικαιοσύνῃ...τῇ ἑαυτοῦ) and the "true righteousness" (δικαιοσύνης ἀληθοῦς) of which he speaks that comes by way of faith in Christ.

Unlike the ancient Eastern Church, the Latin versions of the west rendered the Greek verb δικαιόω (to declare righteous) as justificare, which meant to "make just," and hence that spurious tradition that has been perpetuated in Romanism.

Now, to be sure, one would expect a better understanding of δικαιόω from members of the Eastern Church given their proficiency in Greek, but as Meyendorff has noted: "Byzantine theology did not produce any significant elaboration of the Pauline doctrine of justification expressed in Romans and Galatians. The Greek patristic commentaries on such passages as Galatians 3:13 (“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us”) generally interpret the idea of redemption by substitution in the wider context of victory over death and of satisfaction. They never develop the idea in the direction of an Anselmian theory of 'satisfaction.'" See John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 160. And then there is another reason, as well, for this misunderstanding in the Eastern Church, as Meyendorff mentions on the next page...
Meyendorff: In the east, the cross is envisaged not so much as the punishment of the just one, which “satisfies” a transcendent justice requiring retribution for man's sins....The point was not to satisfy a legal requirement, but to vanquish the frightful cosmic reality of death, which held humanity under its usurped control and pushed it into the vicious cycle of sin and corruption. And, as Athanasius of Alexandria has shown in his polemics against Arianism, God alone is able to vanquish death, because He “alone has immortality” (1 Tm 6:16). Just as original sin did not consist in an inherited guilt, so redemption was not primarily a justification, but a victory over death. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 161.

Now, as you may know, Romanists often insist that there were no expressions of sola fide from members of the ancient church. That is an error of ignorance on their part, which can easily be disproven, which I have done many times when I've engaged them. The ECFs gave many expressions of sola fide in their written documents that are preserved, and some of which I have listed here in the past. The problem is that the ECFs were inconsistent in their expressions of it.

The next thing the Romanist will insist when you have proven his first assertion wrong is that there was no concept of "forensic imputation" in those expressions of the ECFs. Two things in response to that - 1) The Bible itself contrasts justification with condemnation, and I don't know how more forensic it gets than that; But 2) they demonstrate thereby their own double-standard when it comes to proof. For they themselves will allow for a long history of development for the dogmas peculiar to their communion that have absolutely no "seed form" in the witness of the ancient church, while on the other hand they will demand from us proof for the development of what we can demonstrate, at least, to be found in "seed form" there.

DTK
 

wturri78

Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for the summary from Myendorff--it's very helpful. I would say, from a Scriptural sense, that the Roman system of merit (the "grace meter" that determines how long you land in Purgatory) and infused grace is simply wrong. Based on what little I've learned about the Eastern view, though it certainly focuses on sacramentalism, it seems that it's more...imbalanced?than necessarily incorrect? Certainly the cross was a victory over the horrible enemy of death, and victory over the grave is absolutely a key aspect of salvation--perhaps reducing it to this at the expense of the satisfaction of God's wrath in a legal and forensic sense, is as lopsided as emphasizing the legal declaration at the expense of the defeat of death.

I agree completely with your point about the "seeds" of doctrine in the early church. They can take little seeds and grow huge trees of Papal Infallibility, but somehow it's invalid for anyone else to show historical precedent for their own beliefs. I think the East dismantled the Roman claims of supremacy long before Protestants came onto the scene :)
 

DTK

Puritan Board Junior
Certainly the cross was a victory over the horrible enemy of death, and victory over the grave is absolutely a key aspect of salvation--perhaps reducing it to this at the expense of the satisfaction of God's wrath in a legal and forensic sense, is as lopsided as emphasizing the legal declaration at the expense of the defeat of death.
Indeed! We need to confess, maintain, and defend all biblical truth regarding the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I think the East dismantled the Roman claims of supremacy long before Protestants came onto the scene :)
Yes, and the very best and most exhaustive devastation of the papacy from an historical perspective is that offered by the Anglican, Edward Denny, Papalism. In this work, Denny is responding to and refuting Pope Leo XIII's papal encyclical, Satis cognitum. Denny's dismantling of that papal encyclical, and its patristic citations, is simply so over-whelming that it's enough to make any serious thinking Romanist ashamed. It can be downloaded here...

Internet Archive: Free Download: Papalism : a treatise on the claims of the papacy as set forth in the encyclical Satis Cognitum

DTK
 

wturri78

Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, and the very best and most exhaustive devastation of the papacy from an historical perspective is that offered by the Anglican, Edward Denny, Papalism. In this work, Denny is responding to and refuting Pope Leo XIII's papal encyclical, Satis cognitum. Denny's dismantling of that papal encyclical, and its patristic citations, is simply so over-whelming that it's enough to make any serious thinking Romanist ashamed. It can be downloaded here...

Internet Archive: Free Download: Papalism : a treatise on the claims of the papacy as set forth in the encyclical Satis Cognitum

DTK

Awesome! At just under 800 pages, I can't afford not to read it :book2:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top