I'm new here. This is my first thread. I have a question that's been eating me for a long time. I haven't been able to get insights about it from any resources on the internet so far.
William Webster says in his book 'Rome at the bar of history' (I can't remember the page number) that the only universal "tradition" of the early church (let's say prior to 350ad) is "baptismal regeneration".
If this is true, does this preclude the Protestant from arguing that solafide was taught by some ECF's? By teaching solafide I don't mean in a proto-Lutheran or proto-Reformation sense (as McGrath argues, solafide hadn't fully been articulated yet, only aspects of it), but at least in the sense of justification to be apart from our works as I would argue Clement and Ambrosiaster at least acknowledged.
Yet, if BR was universally believed by the church, thus supposedly believed by Clement and Ambrosiaster for example, then am I able to reconcile this with them also believing in justification apart from works and by faith alone? If so , how?
Here's one things I've thought of so far:
Saying that there was a universal tradition needs to have a disclaimer, namely, it's only universal according to those whom actually mention it. It could be the case that the ECF's whom are silent on the issue didn't believe in it. From what I've studied so far, I don't believe that either Clement or Ambrosiaster believed in it.
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
Bobby
William Webster says in his book 'Rome at the bar of history' (I can't remember the page number) that the only universal "tradition" of the early church (let's say prior to 350ad) is "baptismal regeneration".
If this is true, does this preclude the Protestant from arguing that solafide was taught by some ECF's? By teaching solafide I don't mean in a proto-Lutheran or proto-Reformation sense (as McGrath argues, solafide hadn't fully been articulated yet, only aspects of it), but at least in the sense of justification to be apart from our works as I would argue Clement and Ambrosiaster at least acknowledged.
Yet, if BR was universally believed by the church, thus supposedly believed by Clement and Ambrosiaster for example, then am I able to reconcile this with them also believing in justification apart from works and by faith alone? If so , how?
Here's one things I've thought of so far:
Saying that there was a universal tradition needs to have a disclaimer, namely, it's only universal according to those whom actually mention it. It could be the case that the ECF's whom are silent on the issue didn't believe in it. From what I've studied so far, I don't believe that either Clement or Ambrosiaster believed in it.
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
Bobby
