Faith Alone & Earliest Fathers (vs. Scholastic Lutherans)

Including Clement of Rome (d. c. 101), Ignatius of Antioch (50-c. 110), and the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (bet. 130-190)

Photo credit: St. Ignatius of Antioch [public domain / Get Archive]

This is a reply to the video, Trent Horn is WRONG about Sola Fide! [Responsio #5] (11-26-23), posted at the Scholastic Lutherans YouTube channel. Words of the three participants will be in blue.

*****

37:26 what’s going on in a lot of these fathers [is] that most of the times when the fathers are talking about . . . things that look like works contribute to your justification, usually what’s going on is, 1) they’re just talking about how committing mortal sin destroys faith, 2) they’re talking about how receiving the sacraments saves or how hearing the word or whatever saves, or 3) they’re talking about good works meriting rewards in heaven: perhaps different levels of reward. All three of those are compatible with the Lutheran view . . .

this to any normal well read theologian without mentioning the author and it would clearly come across as an espousal of justification by faith alone. He says that we are justified before God . . . then he goes on to say [we]:

are not justified by ourselves or by our own wisdom or understanding or godliness or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but by the faith through which from the beginning almighty God has justified all men to whom the glory be forever and ever. Amen. [from 1st Clement, ch. 32]

39:40 the only good Roman retort to this would be an appeal to “oh yeah, he’s only talking about initial justification, that is, that moment in time where man for the first time is is translated or moved from the state of being a child of wrath standing under God’s condemnation and then transferred into this state of grace whereby his sins are forgiven and he enters into a relationship with God.” And yeah, the Roman Catholic might be able to say “yeah that is without works; that is without any good deeds or anything,” but notice here and and be careful in reading the words of Clement here because not only is this to impose a category and conceptualization which is absent from Clement’s work . . . but it would also seem to run quite contrary to Clement’s own definition, because here he is talking about the justification of all men forever not just some initial point or initial translation and he’s also excluding works done in holiness of heart.

We have to take in all of the relevant elements of his letter together, so that, if indeed he mentions works in conjunction with justification elsewhere, then we have to explain why he doesn’t in this portion. The Catholic distinction between initial and subsequent justification would harmonize the two motifs. Or we can assert that Clement contradicted himself, or the good folks at the Scholastic Lutherans channel can interact with the sort of things I bring up here and propose another explanation. But the latter is like pulling teeth: to get Protestants to interact with serious critiques of their explanations (let alone to interact with our arguments). I hope for a change that this will prove to be an exception.

I would contend that in chapter 32, Clement is opposing salvation by works, or what was later to be the heresy of Pelagianism, and asserting grace alone, with which Catholicism fully agrees. Even when we talk about works, as the Bible does (connecting it to salvation and justification at least a hundred times) it’s always good works understood to be enabled and ultimately produced by God’s grace. They’re not self-generated. They originate in God’s power, grace, and will, and we cooperate with Him and perform them. Then he pronounces them to be meritorious (a biblical doctrine for which I have found fifty passages in support). The Council of Trent is very clear about this.

If chapter 32 was all we had from Clement, or all he wrote about this topic, then sure, I agree that it would sound, at least prima facie, like he believed in faith alone. But we also have other portions that address the topic of faith and works in connection to justification and salvation, which disprove that take, and which, as usual in these patristic discussions, are ignored by our three Lutheran apologists. They present a partial truth or a half-truth. It’s extremely common in Protestant patristics, especially on an amateur, lay, non-scholarly level. I frequently cite Protestant scholars like Schaff or Pelikan or Kelly who do not selectively cite in this fashion. But it’s endemic in popular lay Protestant apologetics.

and that is really key to understand here because only justified believers — only the regenerate people — are able to do works in holiness of heart because outside faith there is no holiness of heart so he’s also excluding good works done by the believers, which shows that he is not talking about those initially justified but all believers. . . . he says this is how almighty God has justified all men from the beginning and and and only by trying to read in foreign categories can you try to frame it in a different manner . . .

I think he is simply expressing the belief in justification by faith, that we agree with when it is applied to initial justification. I have compiled fifty passages about justification by faith also. It’s a biblical doctrine. But Protestants make a false dichotomy between those and the hundred, and fifty about the role that works and merit play in the process of salvation. We incorporate all of them into our theological understanding. We deny justification by faith alone, but not justification by faith itself. What is “foreign” is to separate sanctification from justification, a thing — as Protestant church historian Alister McGrath asserts — that no one did until Philp Melanchthon in the 16th century.

45:18 we can easily come up with a coherent understanding . . . without like trying to to conjure up some artificial contradiction between his two statements on justification

They bring up a few other things, too, but I want to see how they would respond to my argument from other statements of Clement’s, that I shall now present. It’s easy to set up a “triumphant” explanation if one ignores any serious contrary views.

In chapter 30 St. Clement wrote:

Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.

In the next chapter he stated about Abraham:

For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?

Then Clement teaches justification by faith in chapter 32. We totally agree, as to initial justification. We simply believe that good works (which are meritorious) are necessary after initial justification. But in talking about salvation, it’s clear that he thinks that faith and works are both required, not only faith:

For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live — both the faith and hope of the elect, he who in lowliness of mind, . . . has observed the ordinances and appointments given by God— the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ, . . . [58]

And again: “On account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved” (chapter 12), and: “He [Abraham], in the exercise of obedience, went out from his own country, and from his kindred, and from his father’s house, in order that, by forsaking a small territory, and a weak family, and an insignificant house, he might inherit the promises of God. . . . On account of his faith and hospitality, a son was given him [Abraham] in his old age” (chapter 10), and: “On account of his hospitality and godliness, Lot was saved out of Sodom” (chapter 11), and: “It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: ‘Behold, the Lord [comes], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.’” (chapter 34).

See the theme and common thread there? He’s very explicit about the crucial role of works and merit in chapters 21 and 35:

Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight. . . . Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us; let us esteem those who have the rule over us; let us honour the aged among us; let us train up the young men in the fear of God; let us direct our wives to that which is good. Let them exhibit the lovely habit of purity [in all their conduct]; let them show forth the sincere disposition of meekness; let them make manifest the command which they have of their tongue, by their manner of speaking; let them display their love, not by preferring one to another, but by showing equal affection to all that piously fear God. Let your children be partakers of true Christian training; let them learn of how great avail humility is with God — how much the spirit of pure affection can prevail with Him — how excellent and great His fear is, and how it saves all those who walk in it with a pure mind. [my italics]

*

Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vain glory and ambition. [my bolding and italics]

All of this is thoroughly Catholic soteriology. Some, however, might refer to Clement’s statement about Abraham in chapter 31: “For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?” Yes, Abraham had faith. He’s the father of faith. He’s renowned for that. But he also had works. Jordan didn’t mention another instance (one of just three) where Abraham is mentioned, in chapter 10: “He, in the exercise of obedience, went out from his own country, . . . in order that, . . . he might inherit the promises of God.” That’s talking about works. One passage is about his faith, another about his works. Faith and works . . . We can’t only mention one and ignore the other. Clement was referring to Romans 4, which is about Abraham’s faith. But James 2:21-24 is also in the Bible:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

James directly ties the “reckoned as righteous” passage to Abraham’s work of being willing to sacrifice Isaac, which “fulfilled” the other passage. It’s not just faith. It’s faith that inherently, organically includes works, which “complete” faith. Genesis also makes it clear that Abraham’s obedience was central to God’s covenant with him:

Genesis 22:15-18 And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, [16] and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, [17] I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, [18] and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”

Catholics joyfully agree that Abraham had extraordinary faith. But we don’t ignore the role that his works and obedience played in his being so honored by God, and saved. The author of Hebrews also mentions Abraham’s works. He ties it together with his faith, even in the famous “faith chapter”: “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance . . .” (11:8). For more on Abraham’s justification, see my article: Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23].

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,900+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

At 48:40 they cite this portion from St. Ignatius of Antioch:

Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply. Let your works be the charge assigned to you, that you may receive a worthy recompense. (Epistle to Polycarp, ch. 6)

49:05 that’s just plain scriptural, right? I mean, that’s language that’s used all the time in the scriptures and so Trent has to assume that the Protestants can’t [or] don’t have any way of reading that language in the Holy Scriptures, and since we think that we do, his response isn’t going to be sufficient.
*
Maybe not, or maybe so. But for whatever it’s worth, here is my response:

I think equally pious, reasonable Christians can hold that he could be referring (in using “recompense”) either to differential rewards in heaven or the reward of heaven itself. I shall contend that it is the latter, and provide reasons for so believing. If it refers to differential rewards, it’s no problem for Catholicism, since we agree that these occur. But if it refers to heaven, it’s a problem for the Protestant sola fide position. The fact that he refers to the possibility of desertion and also includes the corresponding idea of “endure” may mean that — at least at that point — Ignatius had apostasy in mind.

Thus, “recompense “would seem to be the converse of falling away: staying the course unto salvation itself. A paraphrase, if this is correct, would be: “Don’t fall away. Let your baptism, faith, love, patience, and works in general preclude this eventuality, and lead to the reward of heaven.” In 1 Corinthians 3:14 Paul, I think, refers to differential rewards in heaven. In Colossians 3:24 it seems to be heaven (“from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward”). So Paul uses the notion in two ways.

In the next chapter (7), Ignatius talks very “Catholic” and states, “I also am the more encouraged, resting without anxiety in God, if indeed by means of suffering I may attain to God, so that, through your prayers, I may be found a disciple [of Christ].” He attains to God and will be found to be a disciple if he suffers (not a word about faith there). This is meritorious works (anathema to Lutheranism and larger Protestantism). Ignatius didn’t stick works into a separate category of “non-salvific sanctification” as Lutherans do.

Then he writes, “Now, this work is both God’s and yours, when you shall have completed it to His glory. For I trust that, through grace, you are prepared for every good work pertaining to God.” Here he expresses the paradoxical biblical notion that our good works, enabled by God’s grace and done in faith, are at the same time God’s works, too. This means they are meritorious: examples of what St. Augustine calls “God crowning His own gifts.” This reflects four statements from St. Paul:

1 Corinthians 3:10 (RSV) According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

2 Corinthians 1:12 For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience that we have behaved in the world, and still more toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. (in 6:7 Paul said that he did various things by “the power of God”)

In his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius couples “faith and love” three times (Greeting, chapters 6, 13), and he writes:

Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. (6)

He places faith and works together; directly reflecting the words of Jesus at the Last Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46, and when he is commenting on grace he immediately brings up various good works. He refers to grace, faith, love, and good works, all in the same context, which is what St. Paul habitually does. Again, in his Epistle to the Trallians, he makes similar connections: “Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Jesus Christ” (ch. 8). In his Epistle to the Magnesians, he couples “faith and love” three times (chapters 1, 6, 13). In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he again uses the phrase “faith and love” twice (chapters 1, 14). And he associates faith and works:

. . . your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. (1)

For it was needful for me to have been stirred up by you in faith, exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. (3)

. . . faith cannot do the works of unbelief, nor unbelief the works of faith. (8)

. . . making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, while your faith was the means by which you ascended, and your love the way which led up to God. You, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travellers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, . . . (9)

None of these things is hid from you, if you perfectly possess that faith and love towards Christ Jesus which are the beginning and the end of life. For the beginning is faith, and the end is love . . . The tree is made manifest by its fruit; so those that profess themselves to be Christians shall be recognised by their conduct. For there is not now a demand for mere profession, but that a man be found continuing in the power of faith to the end. (14)

This simply isn’t faith alone, folks; no way, no how. Then they move on to the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus:

49:33 ultimately why it’s so impressive is it seems to teach . . . [that] he himself took on him the burden of our iniquities; he gave his 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, so on so forth, 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 should be justified than by the only son of God? Oh sweet exchange oh and searchable operations oh benefits surpassing all expectations that the wickedness of many shall be head hid in a single righteous one and that the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors . . . ” Pretty clearly consistent with what Protestants believe and a lot harder, I think, to square with Roman Catholicism because this righteousness is found in another. . . . the language of imputation here . . . these are like the exact same categories Martin Luther would pick up 1,400 or so years later . . .
*
When the fathers talk about good works being rewarded and that we will gain recompenses . . . only if you presuppose the Roman understanding that the recompense and the reward is an increase of our justice before God, only then will these quotations provide any form of support for the Roman Catholic understanding. We Lutherans confess in all of our confessions that God will reward good works done done here on earth that there will be heavenly gifts and rewards for us for the good works we do, but these things have nothing to do with our standing before God, which hinges on Christ’s righteousness, not our works.

Now here is my different take on this letter, with regard to soteriology. Here is the entire chapter that they cited, in the Epistle to Diognetus with regard to justification:

As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, 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 those who 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! 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 Saviour 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, Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food. (ch. 9; complete)

This is discussing initial justification. There is no disagreement here. This is referring to an imputation of righteousness to the believer that Catholics can agree with, per the explanations of former Presbyterian minister and professor Kenneth Howell:

I am puzzled why anyone would say that extrinsic righteousness might be excluded by Trent. The only righteousness that justifies is Christ’s. But Catholic theology teaches that what is Christ’s becomes ours by grace. In fact Canon 10 anathematizes anyone who denies that we can be justified without Christ’s righteousness or anyone who says that we are formally justified by that righteousness alone. . . . Canon 10 says that Christ’s righteousness is both necessary and not limited to imputation i.e. formally. So, imputation is not excluded but only said to be not sufficient. With regard to imputation, if Trent indeed excludes it, I am ready to reject it. But the wording of the decrees does not seem to me to require this. . . .

The Protestant doctrine, it seems to me, has at least two sides. Imputation is the declaration of forgiveness on God’s part because of Christ’s work but it is also a legal fiction that has nothing immediately to do with real (subjective) state of the penitent. Now I think the declaration side of imputation is acceptable to Trent but not the legal fiction side. The difference between the Tridentine and the Reformation views, in addition to many other aspects, is that in the latter view God only sees us as righteous while in the former, Christ confers righteousness upon (and in) us. . . .

What is wrong with the Reformation view then? It is the sola part. Faith is essential but not sola fide. Remission of sins is essential but not sola remissione. Imputation via absolution is essential but not sola imputatione. I remember well how this hit me one day in my journey. So much of Protestantism represents a reductionism of the Catholic faith. The Protestants added their qualifiers (sola) and thereby threw out the fullness of faith. [Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation, July 1996]