Works & Salvation: Luther vs. Scripture

Last updated on: July 4, 2024 at 10:35 am By Dave Armstrong

Photo Credit: Luther posting his 95 theses in 1517; 1872 painting by Ferdinand Pauwels (1830-1904) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, believed that works played no direct role in salvation or justification. Faith derived from God’s grace is what saves. He also taught at the same time (as I have documented at length) that good works are absolutely necessary in the Christian life, as a verification of authentic faith, and flow out of gratefulness for a justification imputed wholly apart from them. His view is very clear in the following comments, all from one work, written in 1520:

[T]he soul . . . is justified by faith alone and not any works . . . This faith cannot exist in connection with works . . .

[S]ince faith alone justifies, it is clear that the inner man cannot be justified, freed, or saved by any outer work or action at all, . . .

[F]aith alone, without works, justifies, frees, and saves . . .

It is clear, then, that a Christian has all he needs in faith and needs no work to justify him . . .

This obedience, however, is not rendered by works, but by faith alone.

[H]e needs no works to make him righteous and save him, since faith alone abundantly confers all these things.

In doing these works, however, we must not think that a man is justified before God by them, . . . (The Freedom of a Christian, 1520, in Three Treatises, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2nd revised edition, 1970, 280-282, 284-285, 291, 295)

Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist James Swan wrote a post on this topic, in which he was addressing taken-down words from Luther from the book called Table Talk: “He that says the Gospel requires works for salvation, I say, flat and plain, is a liar.” Swan comments on this:

It often appears to fall on deaf ears when I point out to the defenders of Rome that Luther didn’t write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written. . . .

As with many of the Table Talk sayings, this one exists independently of a greater context or background. It is though [sic] consistent with Luther’s basic understanding of faith and works. There is nothing radical about this sola fide statement. . . . the Gospel doesn’t require works. If works are required, people become enemies of God. . . . the Gospel does not require works.

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this 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. 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!

***

Now I shall proceed to demonstrate that such a view is not in harmony with Holy Scripture.

Obadiah 1:15 (RSV) For the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations. As you have done, it shall be done to you, your deeds shall return on your own head.

Zephaniah 2:3 Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, who do his commands; seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the wrath of the LORD.

The word faith and its cognates (faithful, faithfulness, etc.) appears 175 times in the Protestant Old Testament (RSV). So if faith alone were true, why wouldn’t one of those words appear in these two passages? The ones who follow God’s commands, and are righteous and humble are saved. We don’t deny that faithfulness is part of the equation, too (hence it is mentioned 175 times over the OT). It’s just odd that it’s not present in passages like this, about the Day of Judgment, if indeed Protestantism is correct on this score.

Matthew 7:17-21, 24-25 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. [18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] Not every one who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. . . . [24] Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; [25] and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.

Luke 3:9 (+ Mt 3:10; 7:19) Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-11 . . . when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power, . . .

1 Peter 1:17 . . . who judges each one impartially according to his deeds . . .

Revelation 2:23 . . . I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.

Note the entire emphasis on what a person does and with their “fruit” . . . and it has to do directly with who is saved; with entrance into hell or heaven. “The fire” is, of course, hell, as contrasted with “the kingdom of heaven” which the saved — who bear good fruit — will “enter.”

Matthew 10:22 (cf. Mt 24:13; Mk 13:13) . . . But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Hebrews 10:36, 38-39 For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised. . . . but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

Why would anyone have to “endure” till the “end” to be saved, if indeed salvation comes through faith alone in an instant? The salvation appears to be a direct result of the endurance. Those who endure “do the will of God.”

Matthew 25:31-46 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

John 5:28-29 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice [29] and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

Revelation 20:11-13 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.

Revelation 22:12 Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.

The saved persons “inherit the kingdom . . . for” [that is, because] they fed the hungry, gave water to the thirsty, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked, and visited the sick and prisoners. But the damned go to hell “for” they did none of these things. It’s all works. One must do “good” (Jn 5:29). Faith is never mentioned at all. How, then, can Luther assert that persons cannot be “saved by any outer work or action at all”? Jesus strongly disagrees with that! We (and the Bible) are saying that works are inherently part of the overall equation of grace + faith + works, as pertaining to salvation.

Matthew 19:16-22 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” [17] And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” [18] He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, [19] Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” [20] The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” [21] Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” [22] When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.

This is striking in that a person (usually known as the “rich young ruler”) expressly asked Jesus how one attains “eternal life.” Jesus says that he can attain it by works: keeping the commandments, and giving away all of his possessions. He doesn’t say a word about faith. He doesn’t talk as He should have if Luther is correct about the nature of salvation. Jesus would have badly flunked out of any Lutheran seminary after failing all the elementary tests regarding soteriology.

Romans 2:5-13 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Paul precisely echoes what Jesus taught.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

This is perhaps the clearest verse in the New Testament that directly connects sanctification (which entails good works and is arbitrarily, unbiblically separated by Protestants from justification) to salvation itself.

Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

Paul again directly ties sanctification to salvation, which is anathema to standard Protestant soteriology and Luther’s faith alone.

***

*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Photo Credit: Luther posting his 95 theses in 1517; 1872 painting by Ferdinand Pauwels (1830-1904) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Martin Luther taught the doctrine of sola fide, or “faith alone”. It holds that works have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation itself. I massively disprove this from the Bible.

Luther Grasped “Faith Alone” on a Toilet: “Myth”?

Last updated on: June 20, 2024 at 4:19 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo Credit: Portrait of Martin Luther (probably 1540s), by workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist James Swan, of Boors All infamy, wrote an article on James White’s Alpha & Omega blog, entitled, “Ten Martin Luther Myths” (6-30-07). I will be critiquing #2: “Luther’s Evangelical Breakthrough Occurred in the Bathroom.” Swan’s words will be in blue; Luther’s in green.

Per his usual boorish modus operandi, Swan sets out to make Catholic and other non-Protestant critics of Luther look as ridiculous and inaccurate as possible. He’s tried unsuccessfully to do this to me many times, so I know the process and the mentality very well from firsthand experience. Swan claims it is a “myth, that Luther’s understanding of Romans 1:17-18 came to him while in the bathroom in the tower of the Augustinian cloister.” He wrote in his introduction that he was “amazed certain myths still circulate.” Okay.

Well, we shall see if this is simply mockery and a fable that originated from and is perpetuated by Catholics and other non-Protestants (that we ought to be “amazed” at), or if it actually has historical documentation. I will cite only Protestant or otherwise non-Catholic sources in that regard (lest I simply be accused of producing biased and supposedly inherently untrustworthy Catholic sources). Swan goes on:

In the twentieth century, many approached Luther by applying psychoanalysis to his writings. Psychologist Eric [it’s Erik] Erikson [raised Jewish but not particularly religious] took a German phrase [actually, the primary debate is over a Latin phrase] uttered by Luther and interpreted it literally to mean Luther was in the bathroom when he had his evangelical breakthrough. Erikson concluded, from a Freudian perspective, Luther’s spiritual issues were tied up with biological functions. But, there was not a bathroom in the tower [actually, there was]. The phrase Erikson interpreted literally in German was simply conventional speech. Luther really was saying that his breakthrough came during a time when he was depressed, or in a state of melancholy.

Now, let me make clear, right off the bat, the nature of my motivation in writing this article. I’m not trying to dismiss Luther — or “faith alone ” — merely because of this alleged connection with a bathroom experience. It’s simply a question of the ascertainable facts of history. In and of itself, I couldn’t care less about this “controversy,” and I don’t believe I have ever referred to it in my 34 years of writing about Martin Luther. In fact, I wrote about what is known as Luther’s “tower experience” three weeks ago and never mentioned this aspect at all. Curious, I did an Advanced Search of my blog with its more than 4,600 articles on Google and indeed, no hits came up at all.

But then — here’s the thing — a guy like Swan comes along and confidently asserts that it’s a “myth” and in other places, no doubt, he has blasted Catholics for repeating it. That gets my intellectual curiosity going, so that now I’d like to figure out what we can actually determine — or plausibly speculate — about this purported fact from solid historical sources. I just clarified why I write about Luther, in an article I posted yesterday:

[I am] interested in Christian history, including the founder of Protestantism (who is an extremely fascinating figure). I’ve always loved history in general, and it’s much more interesting to me than fiction. Anomalies like this are interesting and educational by nature.

So — bottom line — it’s simply an interesting question to be looked into. The truth or falsity of “faith alone” obviously doesn’t rest upon whether Luther came up with it during a digestive event or not. Swan denies it, and he has said about 6,987,165 times that he is always a very accurate chronicler of history and All Things Luther (whereas Catholic apologists like myself allegedly are relentlessly wrong about such things). So that, I confess, gives me some extra motivation to write this article as well. It’s a challenge, in other words. I’m responding to his bogus claim. But in any event, it has nothing whatsoever to do with “belittling Luther” etc.

Right away, I discovered an article by a Lutheran “confessional pastor” that examines this issue in considerable depth: “Luther Visualized 5 – The Tower Discovery” (8-25-17). He observes:

The published preface mentioned above [from 1545] was the first time Luther made his gospel rediscovery public. From the Table Talk sources cited above, however, you can see that he had often talked about it privately with his friends before 1545. Most of Luther’s retellings focus exclusively on the content of his discovery. But the 1532 retelling, recorded by both Johannes Schlaginhaufen and Conrad Cordatus, is different. There Luther also makes a point of identifying the location (one gets the impression the group was near the site of the famous discovery at the time): “But when I was in this tower one time (in which there was a privy for the monks), I was speculating on those words [in Romans 1:17].” Another copy of Cordatus’s transcription has: “But when I was in this tower and sweating room…” And after describing his epiphany, he concludes, according to both of his transcribers, “The Holy Spirit introduced this art to me on this latrine” or “on this tower” or “on this latrine on the tower.”

What are we to make of this? I cannot make anything of it except to take Luther at his words. Consider the following: . . .

The plain language of Luther’s description (with several references varying in explicitness) recorded by two different transcribers . . .

In all of his descriptions of his epiphany, Luther never once says he was at his desk or reading; he always says he was speculating or meditating.

The ground floor of the tower had under-floor heating. The warm air from a small stove was led through the pictured conduit under the floor slabs (info marker). Considering that this conduit went right above the latrine, it would have indeed made it a “sweating room.” . . .

According to an info marker outside the excavation in 2013, the tower with the latrine “could only be reached from the monastery” (later Luther’s house after the monastery was gifted to him). This accords with its description in Cordatus’s transcription as “a privy [or private place] for the monks.” . . .

And if you want to find the truth of the gospel in 1518, you have to look in the bathroom at a monk from an ordinary copper miner’s family performing one of life’s less attractive chores.

Luther’s Works, the standard 55+-volume English collection, includes the 1532 Table Talk entry. It translates the phrase in question as “in the tower and heated room of this building” (Vol. 54, 193, No. 3232c). Then it provides an extensive footnote:

This report . . . indicates that Luther’s exegetical discovery took place in a heated room (hypocaustum), which a variant (No. 3232a) calls “the secret place of the monks” and other variants (No. 3232b . . .) appear to call the lavatory (cloaca). Here the meaning of the abbreviation cl. has been the subject of debate, some arguing that it meant “cell” or “chapter” rather than cloaca.

If this [cloaca] is the site of the Reformation discovery, man’s powerlessness is joined by ignominy. Must the trail of the Reformation be followed this far? There is a dignified way out: by cloaca Luther did not mean toilet, but the study up in the tower above it. That, however, would be to miss the point of Luther’s provocative statement. The cloaca is not just a privy, it is the most degrading place for man and the Devil’s favorite habitat. Medieval monks already knew this . . . No spot is unholy for the Holy Ghost; this is the very place to express contempt for the adversary through trust in Christ crucified. (p. 155)

Oberman clarifies what “medieval monks . . . knew” in footnote 8 for this chapter, on pages 338-339:

Luther mentions later (ca. Christmas 1531) the rhyme about the devil who catches a monk reading the first breviary prayer of the day while sitting on the toilet: . . .

*

[Devil: You monk on the latrine, you may not read the matins here!

Monk: I am cleansing my bowels and worshipping God Almighty; you deserve what descends and God what ascends.]

Robert Herndon Fife (a Methodist), in his volume, The Revolt and Martin Luther (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957) has no objection to this hypothesis. He writes in a footnote:

TR (Tischreden, or the German version of Table Talk) . . . II, No. 1681 (1532), where the word cloaca, instead of hypocaustum, seems well attested. . . . Cloaca, “privy,” has caused much perturbation to Luther biographers. . . . The privy was probably located in the tower which was removed shortly after Luther’s death. . . . A reference to the privy in this connection would not have been out of line with the realistic speech of Martin and his time. (pp. 198-199)

I could spend many more hours laboriously searching for further similar documentation and opinion, but there is little point. All I was trying to show was that the “toilet hypothesis” was a respectable, legitimate theory, held by many Protestant Luther biographers and scholars. It’s not a “myth” that no serious scholar entertains. I’ve provided four sources, including, most notably, Luther’s Works, and the impeccable research of Heiko Oberman.

Readers may choose between the dogmatic opinion of James Swan, a self-appointed, supposed Luther expert (a guy with a philosophy degree, a blog, and no published books) or actual Luther scholars (including Lutheran ones). It’s an easy choice for me!

***

Photo Credit: Portrait of Martin Luther (probably 1540s), by workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist James Swan vainly contends that the story of Luther discovering “faith alone” in the bathroom of a monastery tower is merely a “myth.”

James Swan’s Double Standards Concerning Insults

Last updated on: June 19, 2024 at 1:20 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

***

Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist James Swan wrote the article, “When Catholic Apologists Pray for You” (5-30-07), directed towards yours truly. I will cite it in its entirety (his words in blue):

“I’ll keep praying for you, as I do all my severe, hostile, critics.” [me!]

I’m curious how these prayers actually sound, and if any of this language is utilized:

Yeah, I think it’s good to follow Jesus’ advice:

Matthew 5:43-47 (RSV) “You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ [44] But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, [45] so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. [46] For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? [47] And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Luke 6:27-28 “But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, [28] bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

Note how Swan — in very typical anti-Catholic fashion — implies that this was insincere on my part, and/or immediately hypocritical, so that it can be dismissed altogether.

“Jimbo”

“Anti-Catholic polemicist and pseudo-“apologist” James Swan”

“James ‘Dave Got The Citation Wrong Again!’ Swan”

“James ‘A…….g Botches Every Citation He Makes’ Swan”

Similarly, I wonder if these titles are used as well:

Steve “Whopper” Hays, David T. “I Could Care Less about Context”, King Dr. Eric “The Yellow” Svendsen, Frank “Federal Action If You Misrepresent Me” Turk, William “Historical Revisionist” Webster, Bishop King James White

Perhaps there is a particular saint being prayed to, one of whom enjoys such creative language.

What horrific language from me, huh? This is simply tweaking, playful, harmless, Rush Limbaugh-type stuff. I was, of course, reacting in all these cases to truly vitriolic, extreme, slanderous, malicious (fringe group) anti-Catholic insults sent my way, or the Catholic Church’s way, such as that we’re not Christians; our Church supposedly denies the gospel, teaches Pelagian works-salvation, that we are unregenerate pagans and idolaters, spiritual ignoramuses, that “Rome” is the antichrist, Whore of Babylon; stuff like that. There is no one-to-one comparison whatsoever.

My epithets or insults are not nearly as harsh as those of Jesus, Paul, and the prophets. Jesus called Herod “that fox” and the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” and “whitewashed tombs.” He even called them “fools”: after saying in another place that this usage might lead one to hellfire (obviously, then, it’s not an absolute prohibition). Elijah taunted the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel (who were soon to be executed), asking them if their “god” was off relieving himself; Jesus used the sarcastic “log in the eye” word-picture; St. Paul wrote that he wished false teachers would “castrate” themselves (Gal 5:12).
*
Now let’s review just a few representative examples (out of many hundreds) of what these guys have called me:
*
James Swan [link]

As far as I know, he’s a guy in Michigan sitting in his attic with a computer. (4-26-07)

….the one who craves attention. (12-22-07)

It’s all about the glory of DA. . . . . . . a guy who simply claims to be an apologist. (4-14-09)

This is a big difference between DA and I. I’ve never been bored. I actually have a job, . . . On the other hand, I think DA considers sitting up in his attic tapping away on a computer all day an actual job. Oh that’s right, he’s a professional Catholic apologist. . . . Wife comes in: Hi honey how was work today? Husband: today I spent all day posting inane blog comments and compiling a list of someone else’s blog posts about me. Wife: That’s great dear… how much did you get paid for doing it? Husband: well, um, err, um… (7-17-09)

I think it’s quite possible you have serious psychological issues. . . . your cyber-behavior strikes me (and probably others) as very bizarre. If you get yourself checked out, and my suspicions prove accurate, and you get the help you need, be it medication or therapy, and we see a change in your cyber behavior, I’ll seriously consider never mentioning you, and begin trying to strike your name from this blog. Perhaps then we could actually have a civil dialogue. If indeed this happens, I don’t want to be known as a guy who picked on a person struggling with deep psychological issues. . . . (8-24-09; this is the guy, remember, who complains frequently about folks using “psychohistory” to analyze Martin Luther)

[P]erhaps it is time we back of from Dave Armstrong a bit. I know you probably think I’m being sarcastic, but actually, I’m not. / . . . There’s just something not right with Mr. Armstrong. I think he needs some help. (8-26-09)

If anything is “comically surreal” it’s the effort you put in to your research. (12-21-09)

I’m sure you would very much appreciate it if I didn’t look up the quotes you mishandle and put them back in their proper context. . . . I’ll keep looking up your “research.” You’ve put forth enough bogus “research” to keep me busy for a long time, if I so choose.. . . Those who care about truth will benefit from contexts and will find your “work” substandard. . . . I don’t take you seriously as a “professional” apologist, . . . (2-26-10)

Great example of your psychosis. (2-26-10; retracted on 4-18-10 with apology)

That you won’t answer simple questions about context really does make one question your honesty. (2-27-10)

Yes indeed, I do find your shenanigans quite odd behavior. However, as I’ve stated repeatedly while I think you’re wacky, other people take you seriously. . . . I explained earlier your eratic [sic] behavior, particularly on my blog, lead me to question whether or not you needed help. (2-27-10)

I’m not against Mr. Armstrong’s book[s] simply because they are self-published. I’m against the ones I have because they’re simply awful. I’ve reviewed parts of a few of them, and the material is horrendous. (4-13-10)

Steve Hays [link]

“hypersensitive, paranoid, an ego-maniac, narcissistic, with a martyr and persecution complex, . . . a self-obsessive individual . . . Not only is Dave an idolater, but a self-idolater. He has sculpted an idol in his own, precious image. A singular, autobiographical personality cult” (7-16-09); “you’re a hack who pretends to be a professional apologist . . . you don’t do any real research” (1-28-10); “you need to have your psychiatrist up the dosage . . . You have an evil character. . . . I’m supposed to be taken in by your bipolar tactics?” (1-29-10); “. . . a schizophrenic guy like Armstrong . . . emotionally unhinged, . . . Armstrong’s instability” (4-18-10).

I used to think that Dave Armstrong was just a jerk. Not deeply evil. Just a jerk. . . . He isn’t just a narcissistic little jerk. He’s actually evil. It’s not something we can spoof or satirize anymore. He’s crossed a line of no return. (4-13-09)

You have to wonder what Armstrong would do with himself in heaven. I don’t think heaven is big enough for God Almighty and David Armstrong. If Armstrong ever gets to heaven, he’ll have to evict the Lord to make room for himself. Dave is his very own religion. Both subject and object. He carries around a mental icon of his adorable self-image. Lights imaginary candles to his self-image. Burns imaginary incense to his self-image. This overweening self-importance isn’t limited to Armstrong. In my observation, it’s fairly characteristic of Catholic converts who become pop apologists. . . . What is it about Catholic converts like Armstrong which selects for this particular mindset? (“The Cult of St. Dave”, 7-16-09)

[Y]ou play the innocent victim when someone exposes your chicanery. . . . you’re a hack who pretends to be a professional apologist . . . you don’t do any real research. . . . Dave is a stalwart enemy of the faith. He’s no better than Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Just like the militant atheist, his MO is to destroy faith in God’s word to make room for his alternative. (1-28-10)

Both Paul Hoffer and Dave Armstrong are bad men who imagine they are good men. (12-7-11)
*

James White [link]

Roman Catholic apologists like Dave Armstrong, who lack any meaningful ability to engage the text in a serious manner, have no compunctions about grabbing anything to use as a bludgeon against the truth. (3-27-04)

DA lacks the ability to engage the text of the Scriptures in a meaningful fashion, and 2) DA will use anything to attack the truth. . . . As to the first, I simply direct anyone to the “exegesis” presented in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, his 2001 publication. The book is a monument to how to ignore context, avoid grammar, shred syntax, and insert the traditions of Rome willy-nilly into any passage you cite. . . . DA thinks himself a modern Socrates, yet, his writing takes wild leaps from topic to topic, inserts endless (and often gratuitous) irrelevant material that serves only to cover the shallow nature of what is being said, and in the end requires one to possess the skill of nailing jello to a wall to be able to respond to it for its utter lack of substance. (3-28-04)

When do, where do you draw the line? I mean, it would be so much easier to just ignore all these people, but the problem is, we’re one of those few folks that actually gets out there and we get our hands dirty. We actually take on these, these individuals, and show where the argumentation’s bad, and you’re gonna end up with dirt on your hands, and on your face, when you wallow with some of these folks, and we try to figure out where the line is. This guy [sigh], sadly, there are people who write recommendations of his stuff! I mean, you got Scott Hahn, all these folks, which amazes me. Uh, because you [laughter] look at some of his books, and it’s just like “wow! there’s just no substance here.” It’s just rattle rattle rattle rattle, and quote John Henry Cardinal Newman and that’s the end of the subject. And there’s no meaningful argumentation going on at all. (webcast of 4-20-04)

As I said a few weeks ago, since there is no substance to the man’s methodology or study, but no end to his time to tap away at a keyboard, what do you do when he starts in with his irrational diatribes? Hopefully the clear demonstration of his incapacity to engage in meaningful exegesis (indeed, even to know what the term means) will help some who have been impacted by his sheer volume of verbosity. (4-23-04)

Mr. Armstrong has provided a reading list on his blog. In essence, this means that instead of blaming ignorance for his very shallow misrepresentations of non-Catholic theology and exegesis, we must now assert knowing deception. (12-31-04)

Honestly, how utterly pathetic can someone become? It was bad enough that his work was shown to be consistently shallow, and worse that his attempts to respond were shrill and panic-filled (leading to his melt down and his unwillingness to even attempt further defense), . . . But it truly amazes me that someone who utterly lacks the tools to do the work he claims to do with such expertise continues to be dragged along by the rest of his compatriots. Just another example of “as long as it is in the service of Mother Church, it is all good.” What a contrast: we seek to be consistent in honor of the truth, . . . (4-5-05)

Now, moonbat is an interesting phrase. It is generally used to describe the wacko left, but it strikes me as being particularly descriptive of wackos in general, unhinged folks who have no self-control and are utterly controlled by their angry emotions. Most religions have their moonbats. Rome surely does. Off the top of my head, we can list . . . Dave “the Stalker” Armstrong . . . (5-4-07)

Steve Ray and Dave Armstrong, . . . those Roman Catholic apologists who really are not serious about truth but do what they do for less-than-noble reasons, . . . (7-31-08)

The little yip yip yip yip yip dog? That’s Dave Armstrong, because he never does anything original on his own. He always borrows from somebody else. . . . . . . try doing it truthfully. (webcast, 7-31-08)

Serious readers in the field realize that while Dave may stumble over a thoughtful argument once in a while, it is always to be found somewhere else. He simply does not produce original argumentation of any kind, . . . (1-6-10)

Dave Armstrong is not a serious or thoughtful or reflective or studied Roman apologist or writer. Period. (Twitter, 5-17-12)

Dave Armstrong has never had a fresh insight on a theological and doctrinal topic. Period. (Twitter, 5-18-12)

Eric Svendsen [link]

. . . strategy of deceit that he [yours truly] uses all the time . . . (1-11-05)
*

[T]he “nature” of his apology was insincerity . . . That’s the “strategy of deceit” that Paul refers to in Ephesians 4. (1-13-05)

*
He has no problem with lying, so long as he thinks he can pin that same charge on someone else; that way he doesn’t “appear” to be lying. What a sad spectacle. (1-14-05)

*
. . . DA’s strategy of deceit, . . . (1-14-05)

*
What’s my “lack of charity” got to do with DA’s lack of honesty? Nothing. . . . that’s just what DA does best–he deceives, and he usually accomplishes that by focusing on half-truths (that’s the “strategy of deceit” that marks the heretic). (1-15-05)

“Turretinfan” [link]

. . . of course, most of what appears on the web site is not even pretext at Biblical apologetics, just inflammatory material . . . (10-18-07)

I have no desire to debate whether Roman Catholicism is Christian with someone who is not fully Roman Catholic . . . Obviously, for now, the debate is on hold, pending Dave’s decision about whether to follow Roman Catholic dogma or not label himself Roman Catholic. (10-27-07)
*

Dave . . . is a self-appointed e-poligist [sic] and largely self-published author. (10-29-07)

Your dishonesty stopped surprising me when you pretended that I refused to debate you. (8-21-09, 8:22 AM)
*

You are as kind as you are wise or honest. (8-21-09, 1:10 PM)

*
I’ve recently commented on your lack of integrity. It seems this is going to be an ongoing trend for you. (8-21-09, 5:56 PM)

*
Many folks would be ashamed to have the reports of their dishonesty recalled, but you seem to wear the judgment of godly men like Dr. [Eric] Svendsen and Pastor [David T.] King as a badge of honor. You actually seem proud to have been judged dishonest by them. I’m glad to be in their company in concluding from my personal observations to the same effect: that your agenda is more important to you than the truth. (8-21-09, 7:29 PM)

***

Photo Credit: [public domain / PxFuel]

Summary: Anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist James Swan sez that my mild epithets are the worst ever. In fact, his and his anti-Catholic cronies’ slanders sent my way are infinitely worse.

Luther: “As Many Sects and Creeds as Heads”

Last updated on: June 17, 2024 at 6:45 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo credit: Martin Luther: 31 December 1525 (age 42), by Lucas Cranach the Elder [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

James Swan Misses the Forest for the Trees / Calvin & Melanchthon Embarrassed & Scandalized by Protestant Sectarianism

***

Swan’s words will be in blue, Luther’s in green, Calvin’s in brown, and Melanchthon’s in purple.

***

Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant James Swan wrote an article entitled, “The Evils of Private Interpretation: ‘There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads’ “ (Boors All, 2-25-06). As usual, his goal is to show that Catholic apologists and other writers are incompetent, even dishonest stooges and buffoons: incapable of identifying the proper identification of a source. And accordingly, he says, “I’d like to demonstrate again the failure of Roman Catholic apologetics.”

My goal, however, is to go much deeper and analyze the import and significance of Luther’s statement. What are its implications? What does it suggest? Swan doesn’t touch any of that with a ten-foot pole. What’s quite obvious to one and all is that Luther despised and had contempt for this state of affairs. Swan wrote:

This is one of those quotes put forth by Roman Catholics attempting to substantiate Luther’s opinion of the failure of Protestant Biblical interpretation, as well as the need for the infallible authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

To this extent, I agree with Swan. As far as I know (having read quite a bit of Luther), he never denounced his own so-called “Reformation” or took any blame at all for bringing about a state of affairs in which “as many sects as heads” was even possible or thinkable, let alone actual. He didn’t blame private judgment or sola Scriptura, or the schismatic mentality, etc. Maybe something will turn up. But I think if it had, it would have been known by now and used in Catholic critiques of Luther and his ideas: which in the past were generally far more critical than they are now, and much more than my own point of view.

The strategy goes like this: use the above quote and then put forth something like- “…see, even Luther realized how much of a failure sola scriptura was.” . . .

they are misusing Luther to prove the alleged superiority of their church.

Well, in order to succeed in demonstrating that, it seems to me that the person would have to find Luther expressly making the specific point about sola Scriptura. I’ve never seen it. It’s perfectly legitimate and plausible, however, for Catholics to note that the change in the rule of faith — whatever Luther thought — indeed had a direct impact on the ludicrous proliferation of sects, which is directly contradictory to the biblical idea of one Church and no denominations. St. Paul was even more critical of sectarianism and division than Luther was.

Swan then goes on to note that several Catholics, including apologist Steve Ray, cited these words but provided no primary documentation. Yeah; ideally, they should have. Again, I agree. Swan noted that it was cited in the 1917 book, The Facts About Luther, by Patrick O’Hare: a book I used to cite, when I had few Catholic sources about Luther in the early 90s, but stopped, after determining that it was too “anti-Luther” and sloppy. But O’Hare does provide a primary source and some context:

“This one,” he says, “will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.” (De Wette III, 61) [p. 214]

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with this. The primary source is there. He didn’t provide the name of the specific work (Letter to the Christians of Antwerp, from early 1525), which is unfortunate, but he gives the readers something to verify the words that Luther wrote: of that there can be no doubt. And they mean something. The 55-volume Luther’s Works (which I have in hardcover in my living room) chose not to include this letter in its three volumes of Luther’s letters (the year 1525 is in volume 49). Some twenty or so new volumes are planned; perhaps the editors will see fit to include it in those.

Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780-1849) was a German theologian and biblical scholar, who compiled five volumes of Luther’s writings (Berlin: 1825-1828). They are now available online (in Latin and German): see volumes one / two / three / four / five. One can go to the Google book page for volume 3, type in the word “Antwerpen” in the “Search Inside” box and see that word in the name of the letter on page 60, and the year 1525. The words from the famous citation appear on page 61. The letter is in German. The PDF of the entire book can also be searched. The letter in question can be seen on page 60 (actually “79” in the pagination on top). I ran the German title, An die Christen zu Antwerpen through Google Translate and it came out as To the Christians of Antwerp. So this is definitely the letter, and one can see a photocopy of the original book online. I kept translating the material on page 61 (first two paragraphs and part of the third) and this is what I got:

For a long time under the papal regime we have suffered many cruel seductions from the scoundrels or the wicked spirits, which we believed and held to be human souls who had died and were supposed to be walking around in the flesh. This belief has now been brought to light and revealed by the grace of God through the Gospel, so that we know that they are not human souls, but pure evil devils who have deceived the people with false answers and have established much idolatry throughout the world.

*

But now that the wretched devil sees that his blustering and thumping no longer counts, he attacks something new and begins to rage in his members, that is, in the godless, and thunders out all sorts of wild, dark beliefs and teachings. One does not want to be baptized, another denies the sacrament; another sees a world between this and the last day; some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some that, and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; his nonsense is now so gross that if he dreams or thinks of something, then the Holy Spirit must have inspired him and wants to be a prophet.

*

I must tell you an example here, because I have a lot to do with such ghosts. There is no one who claims to be more learned than Luther, who said, “They would all become nemesis of me; and if God would that they were what they think they are, and I were nothing.”

The Introduction on page 60 (presumably by De Wette) reads:

A fanatic from the Netherlands had come to Wittenberg, and had made his opinions known to Luther: this letter is directed against this and other fanaticisms. Luther wrote this letter in Latin, as Walch’s preface to the Xth Th. p. 90 claims, but Opsopoeus No. 15. gives it only in a Latin version (f. Beefenmeyer Litterargeſsch. d. Br. L. p. 58.) and so it can be found in Aurif. II. 281. Viteb. VII. 503. It was published in German under the title: A letter from D. Martini Luther to the Christians in Antorf. Wittenberg 1525. 4. S. Rotermund p. 43. It can also be found in German in the German edition Wittenb. II. 60. Jen. III. 109. Altenb. III. 101. Leipz. XIX. 345. Watch X. 1782. We deliver it in German after the first printing.

Is that enough primary documentation for Swan? If not, there is nowhere else to go. He commented under a related post on 11-28-07:

I would gladly welcome someone scrutinizing the text. In fact, I wouldn’t mind having some good translation work on this, even if it meant I was wrong on the conclusions I drew from the text. . . .

I can actually provide the German text for this quote, now that I actually have a reference (recall not one Catholic apologist I’ve ever come across has given any sort of helpful documentation for the quote…but they use the quote gleefully). . . .

I may be a bit paranoid due to all those in the RC’s in the past I’m used to dealing with.

His own article puts the lie to this (his claim in the second paragraph above). He himself cited the Catholic Encyclopedia (ironically and humorously without including the title of the article), which gave the title of the letter and the primary source from De Wette. That was in 1912. O’Hare also gave the primary source in 1916. Now we can access that in Google Books and translate it with Google Translate (which I did). It’ll all kosher and legit. Much ado about nothing, as usual.

One can readily see that O’Hare (or whoever else he may have gotten it from, in English) accurately translated it. The Catholic Encyclopedia article was written by Sydney Smith in 1912 under the title, “Union of Christendom.” Smith made, in my opinion, exactly the argument that should be set forth (one I have made myself, many times), without claiming that Luther agreed with it. He stated:

What was special and novel in Luther and his colleagues was that they erected the principle of an appeal to the Bible not only into an exclusive standard of sound doctrines, but even into one which the individual could always apply for himself without dependence on the authoritative interpretations of any Church whatever. Luther himself and his fellow-reformers did not even understand their new rule of faith in the Rationalistic sense that the individual inquirer can, by applying the recognized principles of exegesis, be sure of extracting from the Scripture text the intended meaning of its Divine author. Their idea was that the earnest Protestant who goes direct to the Bible for his beliefs is brought into immediate contact with the Holy Spirit, and can take the ideas that his reading conveys to him personally as the direct teaching of the Spirit to himself. But, however much the Reformers might thus formulate their principle, they could not in practice avoid resorting to the principles of exegesis, applied well or ill, according to each man’s capacity, for the discovery of the sense ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Thus their new doctrinal standard lapsed even in their own days, though they perceived it not, and still more in later days, into the more intelligible but less pietistic method of Rationalism.

Now, if the Bible were drawn up, as it is not, in the form of a clear, simple, systematic, and comprehensive statement of doctrine and rule of conduct, it might not, perhaps, seem antecedently impossible that God should have wished this to be the way by which his people should attain to the knowledge of the true religion. Still, even then the validity of the method would need to be tested by the character of the results, and only if these exhibited a profound and far-reaching agreement among those who followed it would it be safe to conclude that it was the method God had really sanctioned. This, however, was far from the experience of the Reformers. Luther had strangely assumed that those who followed him into revolt would use their right of private judgment only to affirm their entire agreement with his own opinions, for which he claimed the sanction of an inspiration received from God that equaled him with the Prophets of old [which he did indeed virtually claim, as I have documented to a tee]. But he was soon to learn that his followers attached as high a value to their own interpretations of the Bible as he did to his, and were quite prepared to act upon their own conclusions instead of upon his. The result was that as early as the beginning of 1525 — only eight years after he first propounded his heresies — we find him acknowledging, in his “Letter to the Christians of Antwerp” (de Wette, III, 61), that “there are as many sects and creeds in Germany as heads. . . .”

This is exactly my own opinion. Swan did, at least, cite a good chunk of the above, for which I give him credit. Luther’s big problem in this regard, per the “theory” above, was his extreme naivete: thinking that everything would be fine and dandy in his new system and never being able to conceptualize the quite arguable connection between it and the proliferation of sects.

It’s real simple in the final analysis: others applied Luther’s new rule of faith (sola Scriptura, private judgment, and a distorted individualistic supremacy of conscience) and went their own way, differing from Luther, just as he had with the Catholic Church. Any astute observer could have easily predicted what happened. Erasmus and More and Eck could see what was coming, in their disputes with Luther. But Luther couldn’t (or wouldn’t, one might opine).

Much better, I think, was the perspective of John Calvin, in addressing the problem of the wildly multiplying denominations, in a letter to Luther’s successor Philip Melanchthon, dated 28 November 1552. At least he is clearly embarrassed by it, implying that he thought the principles of Protestantism were in some way and to some extent responsible (otherwise, why the discomfort?). He stated:

For you see how the eyes of many are turned upon us, so that the wicked take occasion from our dissensions to speak evil, and the weak are only perplexed by our unintelligible disputations. Nor in truth, is it of little importance to prevent the suspicion of any difference having arisen between us from being handed down in any way to posterity; for it is worse than absurd that parties should be found disagreeing on the very principles, after we have been compelled to make our departure from the world. . . .

*

And surely it is indicative of a marvellous and monstrous insensibility, that we so readily set at nought that sacred unanimity, by which we ought to be bringing back into the world the angels of heaven. Meanwhile, Satan is busy scattering here and there the seeds of discord, and our folly is made to supply much material. At length he has discovered fans of his own, for fanning into a flame the fires of discord. (Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters: Letters, Part 2, 1545-1553, vol. 5 of 7; edited by Jules Bonnet, translated by David Constable; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House [Protestant publisher], 1983, 454 pages; reproduction of Letters of John Calvin, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858; the letter in question is numbered as CCCV [305] and is found on pp. 375-381; the portion above is from pp. 376-377).

Whereas Luther made it clear that the other sects were completely separate from him, and fanatical, Calvin was more honest and open to criticism, and included himself in the scandal of denominationalism:

the eyes of many are turned upon us, so that the wicked take occasion from our dissensions . . . our unintelligible disputations. . . . difference having arisen between us . . . after we have been compelled to make our departure from the world . . . we so readily set at nought that sacred unanimity . . . our folly . . .

Melanchthon, too, was severely distressed over internal Protestant divisions and strife, as I have documented not just once, but twice. Protestant historian Philip Schaff referenced this:

The controversies among the Protestants in the sixteenth century roused all the religious and political passions and cast a gloom over the bright picture of the Reformation. Melanchthon declared [c. Dec. 1552?] that with tears as abundant as the waters of the river Elbe he could not express his grief over the distractions of Christendom and the “fury of theologians.” (History of the Christian Church, vol. 6, p. 46)

Writing to Cranmer on April Fools’ Day, 1548, Melanchthon expressed statements of embarrassment (?) quite similar to Calvin’s word above:

I do not, however, desire in this letter to do anything more than express my grief, which is so great, that it could not be exhausted, though I were to shed a flood of tears as large as our Elbe or your Thames.

You see what a multitude of explanations have been elaborated in former times, and are elaborated at this day; because a simple and sincere [appeal to] antiquity is neglected.

. . . no ambiguities should be left to posterity, as an apple of discord.

Melanchthon makes several dramatic, agonized remarks along these lines:

This most miserable anarchy causes me such anguish that I would gladly leave this life . . .

*

If only I could revive the jurisdiction of the bishops! For I see what sort of Church we shall have if the ecclesiastical constitution is destroyed.

*

I am unable to suggest anything that could heal this anarchy (letter to Hardenburg, c. 1558).

*

Something wasn’t going as planned (it seems obvious). He didn’t specifically place the blame on anything, but he was greatly troubled, to the point of many tears. Why? The devil again? Protestants and their leaders bore no blame at all? Human beings find it hard to admit any wrong, as we all know.
*

The causes and the solutions are what is at issue between Protestants and Catholics. Luther and Calvin and Melanchthon apparently never figured out that it was their foundational principles which set the wheels of this sad process inexorably and inevitably in motion. The weakness, I submit, is in the foundation, not the superstructure of denominationalism gone wild. Calvin and Melanchthon were embarrassed — as well they should have been — at the “absurd” (as Calvin put it) nature of such strong disagreements occurring, and the “miserable anarchy.”

To their credit, they felt this tension, expressed it in private letters, and wished that it could be resolved before “posterity” got wind of it. They understood the scandalous, indefensible scandal of sectarianism and denominationalism in a way that few Protestants today do (after 500 years of rationalizing and pretending that it is a good, healthy thing).

But Calvin and Melanchthon didn’t understand or know how to properly solve the problem of relativism and Protestant “epistemology”. That’s my take, and it seems obvious to me. They were referring to the public and history’s reaction to the dissensions. They “got it.” The founders of the Protestant system (including Luther) thought that Protestant divisions were scandalous. This has been a problem since Day One: Luther at Worms in 1521. Private judgment and sola Scriptura inevitably produce such doctrinal relativism and ecclesiological confusion.

The Catholic, on the other hand, believes that there is one Church instituted by Christ (of which Protestants are imperfectly a part, by virtue of baptism and common beliefs), which the Holy Spirit will prevent from falling into dogmatic error. We have the faith that God can and does do such a thing. Protestants don’t believe in such a thing as an indefectible Church that God ordained, free from error. The Catholic view is not only a far more plausible scenario, but also far more a biblical one, and spectacularly borne out by the facts of history.

If the Catholic Church were merely human, as so many seem to think, it would have long since evolved into something else, or disappeared. But it doesn’t do either thing. It’s the Protestant denominations that continually evolve into theological liberalism and that adopt immoral teachings, according to the zeitgeist. Witness, for example, the recent abominable caving of the United Methodists on homosexuality. John Wesley (I published a collection of his quotations with a Wesleyan publisher) is surely turning over in his grave. The liberal Protestant denominations have also long since caved on abortion, too: calling evil good. No other institution in world history is even remotely like the Catholic Church. Protestantism survives only to the extent that its life comes from the doctrines it inherited from us.

In my opinion, Calvin, in the letter above to Melanchthon, and the sensitive Melanchthon, in his various despairing utterances, are rightly and admirably aghast with regard to a situation (division) which is equally alarming to us Catholics. In this instance they agree with us and candidly, honestly admit the strong contradiction between sectarianism and the Bible. But like Luther, they don’t see that the discord resulted from fallacious first principles, just recently conceived by their illustrious predecessor.

Their anarchical and semi-Donatist principles set the wheels in motion that made rampant sectarianism historically inevitable. I’m sure they didn’t think that; nor was it their intent, but I hold all of them responsible for extreme naivete and irresponsibility in not anticipating what their principle of sola Scriptura would inexorably lead to.

They thought everyone would simply agree with them and that there would be this spontaneous, marvelous unity out under the “yoke of Rome.” Their novel views brought about what we see, despite whatever good intentions they had (which I readily grant them). But of course, they couldn’t even agree with each other.

It’s not with glee that I critique what I feel are flawed principles, while simultaneously acknowledging — as I always have — the great good which is also present in Protestantism and its members. The very fact that I have a high regard personally for many, many Protestants, makes me think that I can persuade them of some of the serious difficulties in their system, as perceived by a friendly “outsider.”

I appreciate anyone who takes the time to respond to anything I’ve written. (2-18-06; my emphasis; and this is at the bottom of an article dealing with mostly my arguments; he calls me a “guy”; per his usual juvenile methodology)

Really? How does this expressed appreciation harmonize with Swan’s refusal to reply to any critique I have made for about fourteen years now? If he appreciated even my critiques (notwithstanding his innumerable insults sent my way: including that I am supposedly psychotic and off my rocker), wouldn’t it follow that he would interact with what I offer? “Say one thing, do another”? Meanwhile, I continue to critique his articles (see his section on my Anti-Catholicism web page), because doing so is, I think, helpful for the purpose of understanding how to effectively confront the errors of Protestantism (and especially of the tiny fringe anti-Catholic faction). I refute falsehoods and bad arguments, so that my readers can get some suggestions as to how to reply to similar objections that they encounter. This is the utility of dialogue. It’s a great teaching tool.

***
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Photo credit: Martin Luther: 31 December 1525 (age 42), by Lucas Cranach the Elder [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist James Swan falsely claimed that Catholics never documented this famous quotation, and as usual he ignored its troubling implications.

Grace-Caused Faith is Catholic Teaching, Too!

Last updated on: June 13, 2024 at 4:28 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Please, Someone, Tell James Swan and Get Him Up to Speed

Photo credit: [Flickr / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license]

***

Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant James Swan wrote an article entitled, “Did John Calvin Believe Faith is a Gift Given From God?” (12-21-05), with second and third installments. He was replying to non-Calvinist Protestants Norman Geisler and Gordon Olson and another person following them. Swan correctly answered in the affirmative, and proved it from Calvin’s own writings. He wrote:

These authors hold that modern-day Calvinists who hold faith is a gift of God are “extreme Calvinists”, because not even John Calvin believed this.

Calvinists cannot be said to be “extreme” for holding that faith is the gift of God.

In his third article, Swan observed:

Calvin . . . clearly held faith was a supernatural gift given by God to spiritually dead sinners. Sinners do not have the ability, according to Calvin, to muster up enough of their own faith to accept an offer of salvation without God first doing something supernatural to their spiritual inability to believe.

What I find interesting about this, is that such teaching is Catholic dogmatic, magisterial teaching, too, and had been for at least a thousand years before Calvin. It’s not exclusively Calvinist at all. It’s simply one of many areas where Calvin continued Catholic teaching (whether he himself knew this or not) Swan is, in all likelihood, unaware of this, since he routinely insinuates that Catholics are Pelagians.

Like many thousands of Protestants, he has only the dimmest understanding of our soteriology, and so must unwillingly — in ignorance — caricature it or (deliberately?) distort it. So for instance, in the middle of this series, chronologically, he flat-out asserts in another article the lie that Catholics are Pelagians, or believers in works-salvation, and deniers of salvation by grace alone:

[T]he second group is “Theologians of Glory.” . . . the second group is comprised of Roman Catholic apologists. . . . I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church preaches the Gospel . . .

The Theology of the Cross is a theology of “foolishness.” It denies man’s wisdom and works; it rests totally upon Christ’s work. Indeed, it really does sound silly to think that salvation is found only through faith alone. All the worlds’ religions “reason” that God can only be appeased by some “work” on our part. But a Theologian of the Cross finds it is only in God’s action where we find salvation.

The Theology of Glory is founded on man’s wisdom and works. It is a worldview that seems “sensible and right” by worldly standards. Glory theologians have to understand by the use of reason, and they have to “do” by their own moral energy to be right with God.

The truth of the matter, contra Swan, is that the Catholic Church believes that initial faith and justification originates from God, not man:

Canon 5. If anyone says, that just as the increase [of faith] so also the beginning of faith and the very desire of credulity, by which we believe in Him who justifies the impious, and (by which) we arrive at the regeneration of holy baptism (is) not through the gift of grace, that is, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit reforming our will from infidelity to faith, from impiety to piety, but is naturally in us, he is proved (to be) antagonistic to the doctrine of the Apostles, since blessed Paul says : We trust, that he who begins a good work in us, will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus [Phil. 1:6]; and the following: It was given to you for Christ not only that you may believe in Him, but also, that you may suffer tor Him [Phil. 1:29]; and: By grace you are made safe through faith, and this not of yourselves; for it is the gift of God [Eph. 2:8]. For those who say that faith, by which we believe in God, is natural, declare that all those who are alien to the Church of Christ are in a measure faithful [cf. St. Augustine]. (Second Council of Orange, begin on July 3, 529; in Denzinger #178 or #375 in the most recent numbering system)

Likewise, St. Thomas Aquinas, over 700 years later, reiterated this and taught initial justification by faith through grace:

. . . if we suppose, as indeed it is a truth of faith, that the beginning of faith is in us from God, the first act must flow from grace; and thus it cannot be meritorious of the first grace. Therefore man is justified by faith, not as though man, by believing, were to merit justification, but that, he believes, whilst he is being justified; inasmuch as a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly . . . (Summa Theologica 1-2, q. 114, a. 5, ad 1)

. . . a movement of free-will is required for the justification of the ungodly, inasmuch as man’s mind is moved by God. Now God moves man’s soul by turning it to Himself according to Ps. 84:7 (Septuagint): “Thou wilt turn us, O God, and bring us to life.” Hence for the justification of the ungodly a movement of the mind is required, by which it is turned to God. Now the first turning to God is by faith, according to Heb. 11:6: “He that cometh to God must believe that He is.” Hence a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly. (ST 1-2, q. 113, a. 4c)

The Council of Trent in the 16th century also concurred:

Chapter VI on Justification: Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus . . .

Chapter VIII on Justification: . . . none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Canon III on Justification: If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

I have written in the past many times about how the Catholic belief concerning initial justification is virtually identical to Protestant justification by faith alone:

Initial Justification & “Faith Alone”: Harmonious? [5-3-04]

Grace Alone: Perfectly Acceptable Catholic Teaching [2-3-09]

Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine [1-7-10]

Catholics & Justification by Faith Alone : Is There a Sense in Which Catholics Can Accept “Faith Alone” and/or Imputed Justification (with Proper Biblical Qualifications)? [9-28-10]

Salvation: By Grace Alone, Not Faith Alone or Works [2013]

Grace Alone: Biblical & Catholic Teaching [12-1-15]

Luther’s “Tower” Justification Idea & Catholicism: + Early Catholic Church & St. Thomas Aquinas on Grace Alone (Contra Pelagianism) & Justification [5-28-24]

See also: Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation (Kenneth Howell) [July 1996].

We are in thorough (and joyful) agreement on this. Would that so many undereducated and sometimes willfully ignorant and bigoted Protestants (especially the fringe group of anti-Catholics) would understand this. But the misrepresentations and false accusations about Catholic soteriology (theology of salvation) have been continuous for over 500 years and, sadly, they won’t ever end short of the Second Coming.

We differ, of course, on the notion of justification by faith alone, which is a different issue, having to do with the believer’s response to God’s grace after his or her regeneration and initial justification. See:

Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages [2-10-08]

Justification: Not by Faith Alone, & Ongoing (Romans 4, James 2, and Abraham’s Multiple Justifications) [10-15-11]

Final Judgment Always Has to Do with Works and Never with “Faith Alone” [9-5-14]

Jesus vs. “Faith Alone” (Rich Young Ruler) [10-12-15]

“Catholic Justification” in James & Romans [11-18-15]

Philippians 2:12 & “Work[ing] Out” One’s Salvation [1-26-16]

“Faith Alone”?: Quick & Decisive Biblical Refutation [1-8-19]

Jesus: Faith + Works (Not Faith Alone) Leads to Salvation [8-1-19]

Defense of Bible Passages vs. Eternal Security & Faith Alone (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-12-20]

Justification: A Catholic Perspective (vs. Francisco Tourinho) [6-22-22]

Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 1) [+ Part 2] [+ Part 3] [7-19-22; a debate to be made into a book in Portugese]

Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23]

Sola Fide (Faith Alone) Nonexistent Before the Protestant Revolt in 1517 (Geisler & McGrath) [Catholic365, 10-31-23]

We must understand and rejoice in the areas where we agree, and respectfully dialogue concerning those where we continue to have honest and sincere disagreements.

Photo credit: [Flickr / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license]

Summary: Anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist James Swan argued that it was exclusively Calvinist to believe that faith is a gift of God’s grace. I prove that this is also a Catholic dogma.

Eck vs. Protestantism Chronicles: Good Works

Last updated on: May 31, 2024 at 5:30 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

***

Johann Eck (1486-1543) was a German Catholic theologian, who was arguably one of Martin Luther’s two most important and formidable debate opponents, along with Erasmus (I’ve compiled several of his devastating replies to Luther as well). He was ordained as a priest in 1508 and in 1510 was installed as a professor of theology at the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria: which lasted for thirty years. He mastered both Greek and Hebrew and had a prodigious memory, boundless energy, and very considerable debating skills. He famously engaged Luther for eighteen days in the Leipzig Disputation of July 1519.

Eck’s argumentation might be said to be one of the quintessential examples of the Catholic theological and polemical response to the Protestant Revolt up to the opening of the Council of Trent in 1545. This is one of many excerpts from his best-known and principal volume, Enchiridion of Commonplaces Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church. It first appeared in 1529 and eventually went through 91 editions. I will be using a later edition from 1541 (translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979; now in the public domain).

Eck’s words will be in black; my interjections in blue, and citations from Luther and other famous Protestants in green. I use RSV for scriptural citations.

***

Proposition 1: That faith does not suffice without works, and works are something meritorious for eternal life, [from divine foreordination] and God’s accepting grace.

[“The Lord had regard for Abel and his gifts; for Cain and his gifts. He had no regard . . . And the Lord said to Cain: … If you do well, shall you not receive? But if ill, shall not your sins forthwith be present at the door?” [Gen 4:4-5, 7].]

The Lord said to Abraham: “I shall be your exceedingly great reward” [Gen 15:1].

“Behold, his reward is with him” [Is 40:10].

“There is a reward for your work, says the Lord” [Jer 31:16].

“Sow for yourselves in justice” [Hos 10:12]

“The wicked makes an unsteady work, but to him who sows justice there is a faithful reward” [Prov 11:18]. “Glorious is the fruit of good works” [Wisd 3:15]. “The just shall live for evermore; and their reward is with the Lord” [Wisd 5:16]. “God will render to the just the reward of their labors” [Wisd 10:17]. “You who fear the Lord, believe him, and your reward shall not be made void” [Ecclus 2:8]. “Whatever your hand is able to do, do it earnestly” [Ecclus 9:10].

“Mercy makes a place for every man, according to the merit of his works. . .” [Ecclus 16:15].

“I shall keep myself from my iniquity. And the Lord will reward me according to my justice” [Ps 18:24f]. [Ps 18:24: “Therefore the LORD has recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.”] . . .

“The Lord will render to you for your work, and you will receive a full reward of the Lord God of Israel, to whom you have come. . [Ruth 2:12].

“Be comforted and let not your hands be weakened,” that is, works, “for there shall be a reward for your work” [2 Chr 15:7].

“He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit unto life everlasting, that both he who sows, and he who reaps, may rejoice together” [Jn 4:36].

“Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven” [Mt 5:12]. And again:

“Be glad in that day and rejoice; for behold, your reward is great in heaven” [Lk 6:23]. If reward, therefore, and merit, to whom is reward owed? For these terms are to be interchangeably used in a relative sense, where one cannot be understood without the other.

“Take heed that you do not do your justice before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you shall not have a reward with your Father, who is in heaven. Therefore when you do. . .” etc. [Mt 6 : If].

“Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” [Mt 7:21].

“Whoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water, he shall not lose his reward” [Mt 10:42].

“Call the laborers and pay them their hire” [Mt 20:8], and previously: “I will give you what shall be just” [Mt 20:4].

“If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” [Mt 19:17]. “I hungered and you gave me something to eat” etc. [Mt 25:35].

“Come, blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the beginning of the world” [Mt 25:34].

“And they who have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they who have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment” [Jn 5:29].

“You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you” [Jn 15:14].

“God will render to every man according to his works” [Rom 2:6].

“Glory and honor … to everyone who does …” [Rom 2:10].

“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified” [Rom 2:13].

“Every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor” [1 Cor 3:8].

“We must all be manifested before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, that each one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he has done, whether it be good or evil” [2 Cor 5:10].

“For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward . . . .” [1 Cor 9:17].

“… Abounding always in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” [1 Cor 15:58].

“That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, works for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory” [2 Cor 4:17],

“What things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap” [Gal 6:8].

“Whatever you do, do it from the heart, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that you shall receive of the Lord the reward of inheritance” [Col 3:23f].

“That you may walk worthy of God, in all things pleasing, being fruitful in every good work” [Col 1:10].

“To me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain” [Phil 1:21]. If gain, therefore merit.

“With fear and trembling work out your salvation” [Phil 2:12].

“God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name, you who have ministered to the saints” [Heb 6:10].

“And do not forget doing good and sharing, for by such sacrifices God’s favor is obtained” [Heb 13:16].

“Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.” [2 Jn v. 8]

“Little children, let no man deceive you. He who does justice is just, even as he is just” [1 Jn 3:7].

Note here: works good of their own kind are acceptable to God and deserving of eternal life. This is to be understood concerning living works, that is, those that proceed from the beginning of a spiritual life, which is grace and love. Righteous men, being alive, do such works out of faith working through love [Gal 5:6]. But it is otherwise concerning dead works (because they do not proceed from grace and love) however good they may be of their own nature, such do the impious do, namely, fornicators, adulterers, and such like, works not of grace. (This contradiction according to the Apostle’s statement he implies to fall under merit.) “But if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no mere grace” [Rom 11:6]. . . .

[S]inners ought to be advised that without delay they carry out whatsoever their hand can do; they are not to turn aside or draw back from good works . . . and especially that they exercise works of piety . . . toward the true Catholic poor, according to the principle: “Give to the merciful and do not support the sinner; benefit the humble and give not to the impious” [Ecclus 12:5f]. Daniel so advised Nebuchadnezzar, saying: “Therefore, 0 King, let my counsel be acceptable to you, and redeem your sins with alms, and your iniquities with works of mercy to the poor . . .” [Dan 4:24] [should be 4:27: “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you; break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your tranquillity.”] . . .

Proposition 4: Faith is a work.

“What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent” [Jn 6:28f]. And again: “If you are the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham” [Jn 8:39], but the chief work of Abraham was faith: “Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him as justice” [Gen 15:6]. Note that faith is reckoned among works.

Proposition 5: It is not enough to believe.

“Going, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching (not only to believe, but also) to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” [Mt 28:19f].

It was not sufficient for the blind man that he spread clay upon his eyes, but he had to go to the bathing pool of Siloe [Jn 9:6].

“Therefore, let us work good to all men, especially to those of the household of the faith” [Gal 6:10].

“I have fought a good fight, I have finished my race, I have kept the faith. As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me on that day” [2 Tim 4:7f].

“For unto you it is given for Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him” [Phil 1:29]. . . .

[Objection] “The just man lives by faith” [Rom 1:17]: therefore not by works.

[Reply] What Augustine says is an undisputed fact: this heresy (it is not new, but very ancient) has arisen from Paul’s words badly understood. We admit that the just man lives by faith, because faith is the foundation of the spiritual edifice, for it is the substance of things hoped for. But what the heretic assumes from faith itself, lacerates and falsifies the text, because nowhere does it say that the just man lives by faith alone.

[Objection] “He who believes in the Son of God is not condemned” [1 Jn 5:10].

[Reply] To believe in God with the use of Scripture, includes cleaving to God through love, according to Augustine [In I Jn. Tr. 10]. The younger theologians call this “formed faith.” It is clear from St. Paul: “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that works by love” [Gal 5:6]. Note: Paul does not say any faith whatsoever suffices, but that faith which works by love.

[Objection] “Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him as righteousness” [Gen 15:6]

[Reply] St. James answers: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Do you see that faith cooperated with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [James 2:21f]. Further on: “Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?” [James 2:24].

[see also my papers:

Justification: Not by Faith Alone, & Ongoing (Romans 4, James 2, and Abraham’s Multiple Justifications) [10-15-11]

Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23]

Abraham and Ongoing Justification by Faith and Works [National Catholic Register, 9-19-23]

Abraham’s Multiple Justifications by Works & Faith: Quick Summary of Biblical Proofs [Facebook, 10-4-23]

Abraham’s Justification By Faith & Works (vs. Jordan Cooper) + Catholic Exegesis Regarding St. Paul’s Specific Meaning of “Works” in Romans 4 [3-1-24] ]

[Objection] “He who hears my words and believes him who sent me, has eternal life” [Jn 5:24].

[Reply] Christ said: “So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” [Mt 5:16]. And St. Peter in his canonical epistle urges the faithful in these words: “Having your conversation good among the Gentiles: that whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by the good works, which they shall behold in you, glorify God. . .” etc. [1 Pt 2:12].

[Objection] Love is the fruit of faith. Therefore faith alone suffices.

[Reply] He assumes this falsely, because love is a fruit of the Spirit, not of faith, and similarly faith is a fruit of the Spirit. Paul says: “But the fruit of the Spirit is, love, joy, peace, patience” etc., “faith, modesty” [Gal 5:22f]. “If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” [1 Cor 13:2]. Through this Augustine, On the Trinity, 15:18, proves that faith does not necessarily have love attached to it.

[“. . . faith working through love” (Gal 5:6) might be thought to imply at the very least an equal importance of love and faith (rather than love originating from faith), if not love’s superiority, as do several other passages: “So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor 13:13); “your work of faith and labor of love” (1 Thess 1:3); “your faith and love” (1 Thess 3:6); “put on the breastplate of faith and love” (1 Thess 5:8); “the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 1:14; cf. 2 Tim 1:13); “your love and faith” (Rev 2:19).]

[Objection] “We are all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman” [Is 64:6].

[Reply] Jerome answers: the prophet is speaking of the comparison of the righteousness of the law, and of the righteousness of the Gospel, for compared with the Gospel, legal purity is uncleanness. Augustine says [On the Perfection of Righteousness]: “our righteousness compared with divine righteousness is not righteousness, just as Christ says: ‘No one is good but God alone’ [Lk 18:19], because our goodness, compared to God, is not goodness.”

Photo credit: Christ and the Rich Young Ruler (1889), by Heinrich Hofmann (1824-1911) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: One of a series of posts documenting the Catholic apologetics efforts of Johann Eck (1486-1543) against various Protestants. This entry addresses good works.

Comment: James White vs. Tim Staples on the Rule of Faith

Last updated on: May 9, 2024 at 9:14 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Including St. Athanasius’ Rule of Faith & the Indefectibility of the OT “Proto-Church”

***

The debate was entitled, “Is the Bible the Only Infallible Rule of Faith?” and it occurred on July 23, 1996. White described it as “The single most lively and revealing debate on Sola Scriptura yet. . . . in Fullerton, CA, in front of a large, highly partisan (RC) audience . . . proves clearly that the Roman Catholic believes in Sola ecclesia, (the Church Alone).” Listen to the debate on White’s blog or on YouTube.

I will be responding to one of White’s typically arrogant, boorish, and obnoxious post mortem analyses of his own debate: “An Open Letter to Tim Staples” (11-19-96). Bishop / “Dr.” [???] White — by the way — has always made a big deal of his debate opponents not (in some cases) publishing their debates with him (since he thinks this suggests a lack of confidence of having prevailed). So, for example, he wrote:

I have seen my opponents use many tactics to cover over poor performances in debates. . . . But never before have we seen such complete and utter admission of defeat than we are seeing from St. Joseph Communications regarding the July debate with Tim Staples on Papal Infallibility in Fullerton, California . . . amazingly, we have learned that Saint Joseph’s is still not selling the audio tapes of the debate, and that more than two months after the encounter. We have been making the tapes available since the week after the debate. We made it available as soon as we possibly could. (“Saint Joseph Communications Admits Defeat“)

I debated James White by means of typewritten letters in March-May 1995. The complete transcript of that has been on my website from its beginning, in February 1997. It has never been posted on his website. I would guess that’s because he split, leaving my last 36-page (single-spaced) reply completely unanswered. So his performance certainly left a lot to be desired, by virtue of that fact alone — if nothing else.

Also, the transcript of our only “live” (chat) debate — on the Blessed Virgin Mary —, from 29 December 2000, has been posted on my site ever since it occurred, and has never appeared on his. He left that one early, too (citing technical problems). I added footnotes to it (which he highly objected to, for some unknown reason). Then I later analyzed his relentless techniques of sophistry in the exchange. Both also appear in my book, Debating James White: Shocking Failures of the “Undefeatable” Anti-Catholic Champion (Nov. 2013, 395 pages; read the introduction): which, of course, White has utterly ignored, too (what a shock!) for now over ten years.

White’s words will be in blue.

*****

11/19/96

TO: Tim Staples, St. Joseph Catholic Radio

FROM: James White, Alpha and Omega Ministries

RE: The Debate in Review: An Open Letter to Tim Staples

. . . I was much less excited, however, by a number of things that detracted a good bit from the debate, at least from a professional viewpoint. While the moderator took great pains to be fair, you took advantage of him many times, and went over your time limit again and again and again. I have found this a common thing amongst Roman Catholic apologists: . . . I hope in the future you will show more respect for your opponent, and the audience, by paying attention to that issue.

I have found it common amongst almost everyone who does debates. Now, maybe Bishop White’s behavior is, without exception impeccable in this regard, and maybe Tim did do some of this. I don’t know. But the sweeping generalization of Catholic apologists (as if — it’s insinuated — Protestant ones never exhibit this fault) just doesn’t fly. Nice try.

On a personal level, I was quite simply shocked at the amount of ad-hominem argumentation you utilized in our debate.

Yes, he always is, even though he has lobbed 37 trillion insults at Catholics en masse, and Catholic apologists (see some of his more fun, notable, and colorful insults, sent my way) for over thirty years. White complaining about insults is sort of like a fish complaining that it is in water.

Of course, I find such tactics indicative of a lost cause, . . .

Yeah, me, too. And I’ve always pointed out — including scores of times with White himself — that this is why they are used.

I also get the feeling that you were doing what you had been instructed to do by folks like Patrick Madrid, who likewise uses the “insult, deprecate, and impugn your opponent” means of debating. I had honestly hoped for something better.

If White has to stoop to the level of making this ridiculous claim about Patrick Madrid — of all people –: one of the most courteous, gentle, level-headed, easy-going apologists of any stripe (and a great role model for all of us in that respect), it shows how truly desperate he is to broad-brush.

Throughout the debate you accused me of misrepresentation, out-of-context citation, and toward the end, direct “misquoting” of Augustine and Athanasius. Sadly, you never proved those accusations, nor, as we both know, could you.

This is an utterly plausible claim to me, as one who has dealt with White over the past 29 years. I’ve seen it myself, times without number. And if he gets specific about Church fathers in this open letter, I will prove it.

I saw what resources you had, and you did not have the original contexts of any of the citations I gave.

Those are easy enough to get, especially if they are online, as most are these days.

I saw your list of short quotes from the Fathers-it was all you had with you.

I had no notes whatever in my live chat debate on Mary with White, because it was spontaneous and unplanned, after Reformed apologist Tim Enloe (now retired from debates with Catholics) prematurely departed our own live chat debate in White’s chat room. Even so, once White didn’t have quick pat answers, he got out of there as soon as he could.

I, on the other hand, had the entire Eerdman’s set on my hard-drive, the volume of Athanasius sitting on my desk, . . .

That’s all online now. We can easily and quickly check out-of-context quotes form anti-Catholics.

I’m sure your followers will accept your claims without question, and will never bother to look up what Athanasius actually said.

I’m equally sure that Bishop White’s followers will accept his claims without question, too, and will never bother to look up what Athanasius actually said. This is not a trait unique to Catholic listeners of debate, either. 95% of each side automatically thinks that their guy “won.”

However, what of those who are not your followers, Tim? What of the person who is simply seeking the truth?

That works both ways.

You see, the fair and scholarly thing to say would be, “I believe you are misrepresenting Athanasius’ entire doctrine of authority and tradition, and here is a citation that supports my assertion.” But, of course, your citation didn’t provide that kind of basis,

I’ll take White’s word for that. But I certainly have done exactly this (beginning almost 21 years ago):

St. Athanasius’ Rule of Faith (NOT Sola Scriptura) [6-16-03] [includes lengthy citations of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman about St. Athanasius’ rule of faith, from his Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Volume II, 1844 (his Anglican period) ]

Did Athanasius Accept Sola Scriptura? (vs. Bruno Lima) [10-14-22]

If White is pretending that St. Athanasius believed in sola Scriptura, he is lying, pure and simple, and deceiving his audience. He knows too much to simply be incompetent.

I cited from Athanasius’ letter to Serapion in that article, and provided a strong passage indicating his assertion of the self-sufficiency of Scripture,

Self-sufficiency in this context (a debate on the rule of faith) means the formal sufficiency of Scripture, which means that the Bible is sufficient in and of itself to function as the rule of faith, without the addition of an infallible Church and/or infallible tradition. White, elsewhere, stated this himself:

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church. (The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 59)

But Athanasius affirmed infallible Church and conciliar pronouncements, the Catholic rule of faith, and the binding, infallible nature of doctrines received through apostolic succession and apostolic tradition (all expressly contrary to sola Scriptura):

The confession arrived at at Nicæa was, we say once more, sufficient and enough by itself, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 1)

But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 2; in NPNF2, IV:489)

For that of Nicæa is sufficient, agreeing as it does with the ancient bishops also, . . . the testimony of the ancient bishops, . . . (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 9)

But let the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa alone hold good among you, . . . in order that of us too the Apostle may say, ‘Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and as I handed the traditions to you, so hold them fast 1 Corinthians 11:2.’ (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 10)

For had they believed aright, they would have been satisfied with the confession put forth at Nicæa by the whole Ecumenical Council; . . . they dare to question those sound definitions of the faith, and take upon themselves to produce others contrary to them, . . . (Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, 5)

Who will not denounce their audacity, that being but few in number, they . . . would forcibly cancel the decrees of an uncorrupt, pure, and Ecumenical Council? (Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, 7)

It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this. (Letter No. 59 to Epictetus, 3)

What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the Catholic Church . . .? (De Synodis, I, 3)

But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, . . . (Fragment from Letter No. 29 [Migne, xxvi, p. 1189] )

J. N. D. Kelly, the Anglican patristic scholar, wrote about Athanasius’ views:

Athanasius, disputing with the Arians, claimed that his own doctrine had been handed down from father to father, whereas they could not produce a single respectable witness to theirs. . . . [T]he ancient idea that the Church alone, in virtue of being the home of the Spirit and having preserved the authentic apostolic testimony in her rule of faith, liturgical action and general witness, possesses the indispensable key to Scripture, continued to operate as powerfully as in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian . . . Athanasius himself, after dwelling on the entire adequacy of Scripture, went on to emphasize the desirability of having sound teachers to expound it. Against the Arians he flung the charge that they would never have made shipwreck of the faith had they held fast as a sheet-anchor to the . . . Church’s peculiar and traditionally handed down grasp of the purport of revelation. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: HarperCollins, revised edition, 1978, 45, 47)

I quoted four passages from Athanasius. I here provide you not only with the passages themselves, but with the immediate context, in Greek, of each one. I look forward to the demonstration on your part, Tim, of how any of these passages is “out of context.”

I now provide the four, best as I can make them out, since White gave the Greek texts, not the English ones:

Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. 2. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them, who have also become martyrs for the deity of Christ, to your zeal for learning, in turn. (On the Incarnation of the Word, 56, 1-2)

It’s not out-of-context so much as it is a non sequitur (irrelevant to the debate), which it is because Catholics and Protestants wholly agree on the unique inspired nature of Holy Scripture: God’s revelation to us. That’s not at issue. A Catholic has no issue whatsoever with the above statement. It’s completely harmonious with our view. The issue in dispute in this debate is not the nature of Holy Scripture; rather, it’s the rule of faith: that is, whether any given Church father thought there were infallible authorities in Christianity apart from Holy Scripture, and whether the Bible is formally sufficient as the rule of faith.

Athanasius — as I have already proven from his own writings — clearly agrees with the Catholic position, not the Protestant one. White has simply selected portions of Athanasius that might (prima facie) be thought to support his view (sola Scriptura), but in fact do not do so at all. And he ignores the quotations such as what I have produced (it’s the old, tired standard anti-Catholic methodology of pick-and-choose and highly selective, “half-truth” presentation).

. . . the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources . . . (De Decretis, 32)

No problem for Catholics at all . . . De Decretis is a defense of the Council of Nicaea (325). I’ve already provided, above, six citations from Athanasius, detailing what he thought of that council. It was “sufficient and enough by itself, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy,” and set forth “the word of the Lord” so sufficiently that it “abides forever.” It was “an uncorrupt, pure, and Ecumenical Council.” That’s an infallible council, folks: contrary to sola Scriptura, and Luther’s proclamation of erring councils at the Diet of Worms. This isn’t rocket science. It’s rather straightforward. St. Athanasius also wrote about the Nicene Council in this treatise:

Are they not then committing a crime, in their very thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council? (4)

. . . let them not utter complaints against so great a Council. (5)

. . . the definition of the Council against them, if accurately examined, will be found to be altogether a representation of the truth, . . . (18)

. . . surely the Council was sound in its doctrine and correct in its decree. (23)

See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but you, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can you assign to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council , for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. (27)

White’s third citation is Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae, which uses the word Scripture[s] 35 times. I cited the same document twice (where Athanasius referred to the Nicene Council). All things have to be considered together. That’s what fair scholarship and research method attempts to do, and what White apparently didn’t do in one of his articles that he refers to in this open letter.

1. The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius , come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth — while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know — still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them — the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith. in Christ unreasonable. For this is what the Gentiles traduce and scoff at, and laugh loudly at us, insisting on the one fact of the Cross of Christ; and it is just here that one must pity their want of sense, because when they traduce the Cross of Christ they do not see that its power has filled all the world, and that by it the effects of the knowledge of God are made manifest to all. (Against the Heathen, 1-3)

See my above comments about the unsavory nature of this selective methodology. In the same work, Athanasius also writes:

But the sectaries, who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made shipwreck concerning the Faith [1 Timothy 1:19], they also wrongly think that evil has a substantive existence. But they arbitrarily imagine another god besides the true One, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that he is the unmade producer of evil and the head of wickedness, who is also artificer of Creation. But these men one can easily refute, not only from the divine Scriptures, but also from the human understanding itself, the very source of these their insane imaginations. (6:3)

This conceit of theirs, then, being evidently rotten, the truth of the Church’s theology must be manifest: . . . (7:3)

But that the soul is made immortal is a further point in the Church’s teaching which you must know, . . . (33:1)

The word truth appears 32 times in this work. A few times it is directly connected to the Bible, but most times, not. In other words, he’s not contending that the Bible is the only source of truth. It can be obtained in other ways, too.

I also note, Mr. Staples, your citation of Basil . . . I shouldn’t be surprised: This Rock cited the same passage (I’m sure Patrick [Madrid] was behind that, too), . . . How good it would have been, Tim, had you taken the high road and attempted a meaningful critique of my own citation of this entire passage as it is found in my chapter in the book on sola scriptura-how much more meaningful that would have been! I would truly have been impressed by someone who would have attempted to deal with my citation of Jurgens’ own words with reference to “things written and things not written” (p. 38, footnote 17).

Be that as it may, St. Basil the Great didn’t believe in sola Scriptura any more than Athanasius did, as I have written about five times through the years

Basil the Great (d. 379) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [8-1-03]

David T. King and William Webster: Out-of-Context or Hyper-Selective Quotations from the Church Fathers on Christian Authority: Part II: St. Basil the Great [11-11-13]

Vs. James White #16: St. Basil Held to Sola Scriptura? [11-19-19]

Self-Interpreting Bible & Protestant Chaos (vs. Turretin): Including Documentation that St. Basil the Great — Contrary to Turretin’s Claim — Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura [8-29-22]

Church Fathers & Sola Scriptura: Reply To James White Claims: Myths Regarding Cyprian, Augustine, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius [3-16-24]

Have you ever considered why you have such a vested interest in turning the Scriptures into a “dead letter” rather than a living one? Is it not because you believe in sola ecclesia, and hence must adopt this stance?

Plain stupid and silly . . .

Also, with reference to your statement, which truly caught me by surprise, that despite the losing of the Scriptures and their discovery under Josiah, “The Church went right along without the Scriptures,” I must admit I have to wonder what you were talking about. Do you not recall that the people were wandering in darkness, violating God’s laws, and that they endured His wrath as a result? The “oral traditions” and “magisterium” of the day failed to lead the people aright. The “Church” did not “go along” without the Scriptures: she stumbled right into the pit of wrath, in point of fact.

The Old Testament is a sad record of the continual forsaking of the Lord by the Israelites, but also their (God-caused) revivals and return. The question here — which I think Tim was likely emphasizing — is whether the OT “proto-church” ever completely died (just as White thinks the Catholic Church did). St. Francis de Sales, in his book, The Catholic Controversy, makes some solid arguments that this did not happen (my bracketed interjections):

Exodus 32:26 [RSV] then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, “Who is on the LORD’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him.

Did not Aaron the High Priest adore the golden calf with all his people? [Protestant argument for complete defectibility] Answer: Aaron was not as yet High Priest, nor head of the people, but became so afterwards. And it is not true that all the people worshipped idols: — for were not the children of Levi men of God, who joined themselves to Moses? (pp. 60-61)

2 Chronicles 15:3 For a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law;

Elijah lamented that he was alone in Israel (1 Ki 19:14) [“I, even I only, am left”]. Answer: Elijah was not the only good man in Israel, for there were seven thousand men who had not given themselves up to idolatry [1 Ki 19:18: “I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Ba’al”], and what the Prophet says here is only to express better the justice of his complaint. It is not true again that if all Israel had failed, the Church would have thereby ceased to exist, for Israel was not the whole Church. Indeed it was already separated therefrom by the schism of Jeroboam; and the kingdom of Judah was the better and principal part; and it is Israel, not Judah, of which Azarias predicted that it should be without priest and sacrifice. (p. 61)

Isaiah 1:4-6 Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the LORD, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged. [5] Why will you still be smitten, that you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. [6] From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, . . .

. . . these are forms of speaking, and of vehemently detesting the vice of a people. And although the Prophets, pastors and preachers use these general modes of expression, we are not to understand them of each particular person, but only of a large proportion; as appears by the example of Elijah who complained that he was alone, notwithstanding that there were yet seven thousand faithful. [1 Ki 19:14, 18] S. Paul complains to the Philippians (2:21) that all seek their own interest and advantage; still at the end of the Epistle he acknowledges that there were many good people with him and with them. [4:10, 14-18] (p. 61)

Psalm 14:2-3 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. [3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one. [cf. Ps 53:1-3; 143:2; Is 64:6-7; Rom 3:10-12]

Who knows not the complaint of David . . . — and who knows not on the other hand that there were many good people in his day? [see Ps 7:10; 11:2, 5, 7; 15:2-5; 18:23, 25-26; 24:4; 31:18; 32:11; 33:1; 34:17, 21; 36:10; 37:14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 28-32, 37, 39; 52:6; 55:22; 58:10-11; 64:4, 10; 68:3; 73:1; 75:10; 84:11; 92:12; 94:15; 97:11; 101:6; 107:42; 111:1; 112:2, 4-9; 118:20; 119:1, 10; 125:3-4; 140:13; 141:5; 142:7: “upright,” “good,” “righteous,” “blameless,” “pure”] These forms of speech are frequent, but we must not draw a particular conclusion about each individual. Further, — such things do not prove that faith had failed in the Church, nor that the Church was dead: for it does not follow that if a body is everywhere diseased it is therefore dead. Thus, without doubt, are to be understood all similar things which are found in the threats and rebukes of the Prophets. (pp. 61-62)

Likewise, Isaiah states: “all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment . . . There is no one that calls upon thy name,” (Is 64:6-7), yet makes frequent reference to the righteous (that word, or righteousness, appears 56 times in the book, in RSV) just as in the Psalms (1:17; 3:10; 26:7; 33:15; 38:3; 51:7; 56:1; 57:1-2, 12; 64:5). Isaiah 64:6-7 is typical Hebrew hyperbole. But Protestants, and especially Calvinists with their unbiblical notion of total depravity (not understanding the literary genre) interpret it and similar passages literally. In context, clearly it is not intended to be so. In the passage immediately before (Is 64:5), the prophet states: “Thou meetest him that joyfully works righteousness.”

Therefore, White’s claim of “OT defectibility”: is not at all unquestionable. It has to be seriously argued, with all of the relevant biblical data taken into account. White is the “master” of the selective Bible citation and corresponding argument based on this sort of half-truth.

I might note as well, Tim, that when you spent half of your closing statement discussing Papal infallibility, you made a few statements that were way out of line. First, you discussed Vigilius, when I never mentioned him.

White didn’t have to mention him for it to be relevant, if it is related to the topic. Where did White get this silly notion? Would he claim that he has never mentioned in his umpteen debates anything that his opponent didn’t mention first? It’s asinine. Vigilius clearly is relevant to the topic of papal infallibility, since his case is an objection to it that critics of the Catholic Church often bring up. But it’s a failed objection. See:

Pope Vigilius (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Was Pope Vigilius a Heretic? (Mark Hausam, Where Peter Is, 4-12-20)

Popes Vigilius and Honorius I (David J. Pollard, Worldwide Catholic Solidarity, 2-7-14)

But please keep this one thing in mind: I do not debate for “my side.” I realize that there will be “X” number of people at a debate who will agree with me, and there will be “Y” number of people who will agree with my opponent. Those folks are going to sit there and listen, and hopefully be blessed, but their minds are already made up. I debate for the person who is truly seeking answers-the best possible answers. I seek to convince the person who is going to check out everything I say, and critically analyze my arguments.

This is true, and my goal as well in my many written debates. Nice to end on a note of agreement!

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

***

Summary: I offer critical analysis of Baptist anti-Catholic James White’s post mortem of his 1996 debate with Catholic apologist Tim Staples on the subject of the rule of faith.

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-387) vs. “Faith Alone”

Last updated on: May 1, 2024 at 8:59 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (w 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. 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!

***

[relevant sections from my book, The Quotable Eastern Church Fathers: Distinctively Catholic Elements in Their Theology(July 2013, 303 pages; the back cover — Hagia Sophia in ancient Constantinople — is pictured above). To verify sources (standard Schaff edition of the Fathers), see the St. Cyril of Jerusalem section on the New Advent web page, “The Fathers of the Church”]

***

Baptism and Being “Born Again”

It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter: for He saith, Except a man be born anew (and He adds the words) of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. . . . Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith, the body also might by the water partake of the grace. (Third Catechetical Lecture, 4; NPNF2-7)

And at the self-same moment ye were both dying and being born; . . . (Twentieth Catechetical Lecture, 4; NPNF2-7)

Baptism and Justification / Sanctification

For since man is of twofold nature, soul and body, the purification also is twofold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near unto God, having our heart sprinkled by the Spirit, and our body washed with pure water. . . . Having gone down dead in sins, thou comest up quickened in righteousness. (Third Catechetical Lecture, 4 and 12; NPNF2-7)

Baptism and Salvation

Great is the Baptism that lies before you a ransom to captives; a remission of offences; a death of sin; a new-birth of the soul; a garment of light; a holy indissoluble seal; a chariot to heaven; the delight of Paradise; a welcome into the kingdom; the gift of adoption! But there is a serpent by the wayside watching those who pass by: beware lest he bite thee with unbelief. He sees so many receiving salvation, and is seeking whom he may devour. (Procatechesis for the Catechetical Lectures, 16; NPNF2-7)

When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Ghost: for without both thou canst not possibly be made perfect. . . . If any man receive not Baptism, he hath not salvation; . . . (Third Catechetical Lecture, 4 and 10; NPNF2-7)

. . . that having lived the rest of thy life in the flesh in soberness and godly doctrine, thou mayest enjoy the one salvation which flows from Baptism; . . . (Fourth Catechetical Lecture, 37; NPNF2-7)

. . . that Water of salvation was at once your grave and your mother. (Twentieth Catechetical Lecture, 4; NPNF2-7)

Baptismal Regeneration

If any here is a slave of sin, let him promptly prepare himself through faith for the new birth into freedom and adoption; and having put off the miserable bondage of his sins, and taken on him the most blessed bondage of the Lord, so may he be counted worthy to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Put off, by confession, the old man, which waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit, that ye may put on the new man, which is renewed according to knowledge of Him that created him. Get you the earnest of the Holy Spirit through faith, that ye may be able to be received into the everlasting habitations. Come for the mystical Seal, that ye may be easily recognised by the Master; be ye numbered among the holy and spiritual flock of Christ, to be set apart on His right hand, and inherit the life prepared for you. For they to whom the rough garment of their sins still clings are found on the left hand, because they came not to the grace of God which is given through Christ at the new birth of Baptism: new birth I mean not of bodies, but the spiritual new birth of the soul. (First Catechetical Lecture, 2; NPNF2-7)

For as Jesus took upon Him the sins of the world, and died, that by putting sin to death He might rise again in righteousness; so thou by going down into the water, and being in a manner buried in the waters, as He was in the rock, art raised again walking in newness of life. (Third Catechetical Lecture, 12; NPNF2-7)

. . . divine and life-giving Baptism . . . (Nineteenth Catechetical Lecture, 1; NPNF2-7)

Faith and Works

Let us therefore bear fruit worthily. God forbid that in us should be done what befell that barren fig-tree, that Jesus come not even now and curse us for our barrenness. But may all be able to use that other saying, But I am like a fruitful olive-tree in the house of God: I have trusted in the mercy of God for ever,—an olive-tree not to be perceived by sense, but by the mind, and full of light. As then it is His part to plant and to water, so it is thine to bear fruit: it is God’s to grant grace, but thine to receive and guard it. (First Catechetical Lecture, 4; NPNF2-7)

For the method of godliness consists of these two things, pious doctrines, and virtuous practice: and neither are the doctrines acceptable to God apart from good works, nor does God accept the works which are not perfected with pious doctrines. (Fourth Catechetical Lecture, 2; NPNF2-7)

There is much to tell of faith, and the whole day would not be time sufficient for us to describe it fully. At present let us be content with Abraham only, as one of the examples from the Old Testament, seeing that we have been made his sons through faith. He was justified not only by works, but also by faith: for though he did many things well, yet he was never called the friend of God, except when he believed. Moreover, his every work was performed in faith. (Fifth Catechetical Lecture, 5; NPNF2-7)

Salvation and Works

. . . when thou repentest shall He not give thee the remission of sins, and the kingdom of heaven, if thou live a worthy life? (Second Catechetical Lecture, 19; NPNF2-7)

. . . for the time to come ye must behave yourselves worthily of this grace both in words and deeds, that you may all be enabled to enjoy the life everlasting. (Eighteenth Catechetical Lecture, 33; NPNF2-7)

Salvation, Instant (Falsity of)

Guard thine own soul, that thou be not ensnared, to the end that abiding in hope thou mayest become an heir of everlasting salvation. (CJ, Procatechesis for the Catechetical Lectures, 16; NPNF2-7)

***

Summary: I compile writings from St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-387): expressing his opposition to the novel Protestant 16th century innovation of “faith alone” (aka sola fide).

St. Jerome (c. 343-420) vs. “Faith Alone”

Last updated on: April 29, 2024 at 8:47 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (w 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 sort of the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. 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!

***

Good Works Necessary for Salvation

For neither celibacy nor marriage avails anything without works, since even faith, which is specially characteristic of Christians, if it have not works, is said to be dead, . . . (Against Jovinianus, Bk. I, 11)

For when Peter, representing the Apostles, says to the Lord: [Matthew 19:27] Lo we have left all and followed you, the Lord answered him, [Luke 18:29-30] Verily I say unto you, there is no man that has left house or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life. (Against Jovinianus, Bk. I, 26)

For if the woman is saved in child-bearing, . . . why did he add if they continue in faith and love and sanctification . . . ? [1 Tim 2:15] (Against Jovinianus, Bk. I, 27)

In vain do we make our boast in him whose commandments we keep not. To him that knows what is good, and does it not, it is sin. James 2:26 As the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead. And we must not think it a great matter to know the only God, when even devils believe and tremble. He that says he abides in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked. Our opponent may choose whichever of the two he likes; we give him his choice. Does he abide in Christ, or not? If he abide, let him then walk as Christ walked. But if there is rashness in professing to copy the virtues of our Lord, he does not abide in Christ, for he does not walk as did Christ. (Against Jovinianus, Bk. II, 2)

But, beloved, I am persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation. For it is not accordant with the righteousness of God to forget good works, . . . (Against Jovinianus, Bk. II, 3)

Lot also, God’s friend, whom He saved upon the mountain, who was the only one found righteous out of so many thousands . . .
(Letter 22: To Eustochium, 8)

What great power compassion has and what high rewards it is destined to win, the blessed Cyprian sets forth in an extensive work. It is proved also by the counsel of Daniel who desired the most impious of kings — had he been willing to hear him — to be saved by showing mercy to the poor. [Daniel 4:27] (Letter 66: To Pammachius, 5)

When in the gospel the apostles ask their Lord and Saviour what He will give to those who have left all for His sake, He tells them that they shall receive an hundredfold now in this time and in the world to come eternal life. [Mark 10:28-30] [Letter 108: To Eustochium, 3]

One who despairs of salvation can have no expectation of a judgment to come. For if he dreaded such, he would by doing good works prepare to meet his Judge. Let us hear what God says through Jeremiah, withhold your foot from a rough way and your throat from thirst and again shall they fall, and not arise? Shall he turn away, and not return? [Jeremiah 8:4] Let us hear also what God says by Isaiah: When you shall turn and bewail yourself, then shall you be saved, and then shall you know where you have hitherto been. We do not realize the miseries of sickness till returning health reveals them to us. So sins serve as a foil to the blessedness of virtue; and light shines more brightly when it is relieved against darkness. Ezekiel uses language like that of the other prophets because he is animated by a similar spirit. Repent, he cries, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions whereby you have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies, says the Lord. [Ezekiel 18:30-32] Wherefore in a subsequent passage he says: As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked: but that the wicked turn from his way and live. [Ezekiel 33:11] These words show us that the mind must not through disbelief in the promised blessings give way to despair; and that the soul once marked out for perdition must not refuse to apply remedies on the ground that its wounds are past curing. (Letter 122: To Rusticus, 1)

In Egypt the monasteries make it a rule to receive none who are not willing to work; for they regard labour as necessary not only for the support of the body but also for the salvation of the soul. (Letter 125: To Rusticus, 11)

. . . that he may not be shut out by the bridegroom because being unprovided with the oil of good works his lamp has gone out. [Matthew 25:1-10] (Letter 125: To Rusticus, 20)

The same may be said of sanctification and of that chastity without which no man shall see the Lord. Each of these is a step on the upward way, yet none of them by itself will avail to win the virgin’s crown. The gospel teaches us this in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins; the former of whom enter into the bridechamber of the bridegroom, while the latter are shut out from it because not having the oil of good works they allow their lamps to fail. [Matthew 25:1-12] (Letter 130: To Demetrias, 11)

Baptismal Regeneration / Baptism & Salvation / Born Again

If it were possible for us to be always immersed in the waters of baptism, sins would fly over our heads and leave us untouched. The Holy Spirit would protect us. (Against the Pelagians, Bk. III, 1)

No sooner do they rise from the baptismal font, and by being born again and incorporated into our Lord and Saviour thus fulfil what is written of them, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered, than at the first communion of the body of Christ they say, Forgive us our debts, . . . (Against the Pelagians, Bk. III, 15)

If baptism makes a man new and creates a wholly new being, and if there is nothing of the old man held over in the new, that which once was in the old cannot be imputed to the new. (Letter 69: To Oceanus, 2)

All iniquities, we are told, are forgiven us at our baptism, and when once we have received God’s mercy we need not afterwards dread from Him the severity of a judge. The apostle says:— And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. [1 Corinthians 6:11] All sins then are forgiven; it is an honest and faithful saying. (Letter 69: To Oceanus, 4)

What the true effect of baptism is, and what is the real grace conveyed by water hallowed in Christ, I will presently tell you . . . (Letter 69: To Oceanus, 5)

And it is to the grace of baptism that the prophecy of Micah refers: He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us: he will subdue our iniquities, and will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea. [Micah 7:19] (Letter 69: To Oceanus, 6)

Time would fail me were I to try to lay before you in order all the passages in the Holy Scriptures which relate to the efficacy of baptism or to explain the mysterious doctrine of that second birth which though it is our second is yet our first in Christ. (Letter 69: To Oceanus, 7)

. . . baptism ensures the salvation of the child . . . (Letter 107: To Laeta, 6)

. . . regeneration through the baptismal laver, . . . (Letter 123: To Ageruchia, 11)

Of those engendered of the seed of Adam no man is born without sin, and it is necessary even for babes to be born anew in Christ by the grace of regeneration. (Letter 144: To Optatus, 9)

Infused Justification / Sanctification

Amongst other passages, Paul the Apostle writes to the Romans: [Romans 6:21-22] What fruit then had ye at that time in the things whereof you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end eternal life. I suppose too that the end of marriage is death. But the compensating fruit of sanctification, fruit belonging either to virginity or to continence, is eternal life. (Against Jovinianus, Bk. I, 37)

Working Together with God (Synergy)

God created us with free will, and we are not forced by necessity either to virtue or to vice. Otherwise, if there be necessity, there is no crown. As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that pities and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. (Against Jovinianus, Bk. II, 3)

We are agreed, then, that in good works, besides our own power of choice, we lean on the help of God; in evil works we are prompted by the devil. (Against the Pelagians, Bk. I, 2)

Now where there is grace, this is not given in return for works but is the free gift of the giver, so that the apostles’ words are fulfilled: it is not of him that wills nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. [Romans 9:16] And yet it is ours to will and not to will; and all the while the very liberty that is ours is only ours by the mercy of God. (Letter 130: To Demetrias, 12)

Since our wills are free, they argue, we are no longer dependent upon God; and they forget the Apostle’s words what have you that thou did not receive? Now if you received it why do you glory as if you had not received it? [1 Corinthians 4:7] A nice return, truly, does a man make to God when to assert the freedom of his will he rebels against Him! For our parts we gladly embrace this freedom, but we never forget to thank the Giver; knowing that we are powerless unless He continually preserves in us His own gift. As the apostle says, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. [Romans 9:16] To will and to run are mine, but they will cease to be mine unless God brings me His continual aid. For the same apostle says it is God which works in you both to will and to do. [Philippians 2:13] And in the Gospel the Saviour says: my Father works hitherto and I work. [John 5:17] He is always a giver, always a bestower. It is not enough for me that he has given me grace once; He must give it me always. I seek that I may obtain, and when I have obtained I seek again. (Letter 133: To Ctesiphon, 6)

Human Beings Helping Cause Others to be Saved

For me, too, I feel sure, she makes intercession and asks God to pardon my sins in return for the warnings and advice that I bestowed on her, when to secure her salvation I braved the ill will of her family. (Letter 39: To Paul, 7)

Another would perhaps describe how for his salvation you left the east and the desert and how you soothed me your dearest comrade by holding out hopes of a return: and all this that you might save, if possible, both your sister, then a widow with one little child, or, should she reject your counsels, at any rate your sweet little nephew. (Letter 60: To Heliodorus, 9)

Not content with assuring her own salvation she has sought yours also, in former days at home and now in the holy places. (Letter 122: To Rusticus, 1)

. . . yet you will not follow her when her salvation leads you to the threshold of the faith! P. . . your fellow-servant who daily sighs for your salvation and never despairs of it. While you are wandering about your own country . . . she is interceding for you in the venerable spots which witnessed the nativity, crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, and in the first of which He uttered His infant-cry. She draws you to her by her prayers that you may be saved, if not by your own exertions, at any rate by her faith. (Letter 122: To Rusticus, 4)

Falling Away from Salvation (Apostasy)

Therefore I keep under my body and bring it into subjection lest that by any means when I have preached to others I myself should be a castaway. [1 Corinthians 9:27] If Paul is afraid, which of us can venture to be confident? If David the friend of God and Solomon who loved God were overcome like other men, if their fall is meant to warn us and their penitence to lead us to salvation, who in this slippery life can be sure of not falling? (Letter 79: To Salvina, 7)

. . . without the gift of grace afterwards received and kept they cannot be saved. (Letter 85: To Paulinus, 2)

It is better to lose a portion of one’s substance than to imperil the salvation of one’s soul. It is better to lose that which some day, whether we like it or not, must be lost to us and to give it up freely, than to lose that for which we should sacrifice all that we have. . . . the sinner must not despair of salvation nor the righteous man rest secure in his virtue. (Letter 123: To Ageruchia, 15)

***

Photo credit: St. Jerome, by Leonello Spada (1576-1622). The first eyeglasses were invented in Italy, c. 1286 [!] [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I compile writings from St. Jerome (c. 343-420) which substantiate his opposition to the novel 16th century Protestant innovation of “faith alone”.

St. Augustine (354-430) vs. “Faith Alone”

Last updated on: April 26, 2024 at 10:34 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

***

[relevant sections from my book, The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology (Sep. 2012, 245 pages). To verify sources (standard Schaff edition of the Fathers), see the St. Augustine section on the New Advent web page, “The Fathers of the Church”]

***

INDIVIDUAL WORKS (BY ABBREVIATION)

Bapt. On Baptism, Against the Donatists (De baptismo) 400 / 401
Believ. On the Usefulness of Believing (De utilitate credendi) 391
C.Ep.Pel. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum) 420
C.Faust. Against Faustus the Manichee (Contra Faustum Manichaeum) 397-398
C.Fortun. Disputation Against Fortunatus 392
C.Fund.M Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus (Contra epistulam quam vocant fundamenti) 397
C.Pet. Against the Letters of Petilian the Donatist (Contra litteras Petiliani) 401 / 405
Cat.Creed Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 393
Cat.U. On Catechizing the Uninstructed (De catechizandis rudibus) 400
City City of God (De civitate Dei) 413-427
Conf. The Confessions (Confessiones) 397-401
Confl. On the Christian Conflict (De agone christiano) 396
Dead On the Care of the Dead (De cura pro mortuis gerenda) 420-422
Doctr. On Christian Doctrine (De doctrina christiana) 396-426
E.Ps. Explanations of the Psalms (Enarrationes in Psalmos) 396-420
Ench. Enchiridion: Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love (Enchiridion ad Laurentium) 421-422
Ep.[#] Letters (Epistulae) 386-429
F.Creed Of Faith and the Creed (De fide et symbolo) 393
F.Works On Faith and Works (De fide et operibus) 412 / 413
Good On the Nature of Good (De natura boni) 399
Grace.Free On Grace and Free Will (De gratia et libero arbitrio) 426 / 427
Grace.Orig. On the Grace of Christ and on Original Sin (De gratia Christi et de peccato originali) 418
H.1Jn Homilies on the First Epistle of John (Tractatus in epistolam Ioannis ad Parthos) 407 / 409
Harm.G. Harmony of the Gospels (De consensu evangelistarum) 400
L.John Lectures on the Gospel of John (In euangelium Ioannis tractatus) 406-430
M.Concup. On Marriage and Concupiscence (De nuptiis et concupiscentia) 419 / 420
Marr. On the Good of Marriage (De bono coniugale) 401
Monks On the Work of Monks (De opere monachorum) 400
Mor.C On the Morals of the Catholic Church (De moribus ecclesiae catholicae) 387 / 389
Mor.M On the Morals of the Manichaeans (De moribus Manichaeorum) 387 / 389
Nat. On Nature and Grace (De natura et gratia) 414 / 415
P.Pel. On the Proceedings of Pelagius (De gestis Pelagii) 417
Perf. On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness (De perfectione iustitiae) 415 / 416
Persev. On the Gift of Perseverance (De dono perseverantiae) 428 / 429
Pred. On the Predestination of the Saints (De praedestinatione sanctorum) 428 / 429
Reb.Gr. On Rebuke and Grace (De correptione et gratia) 426 / 427
S.Mount On the Sermon on the Mount (De sermone Domini in monte) 393 / 394
Serm. Sermons on the New Testament 393-430
Sin.I.Bapt. On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Baptism (De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum) 412
Sol. The Soliloquies (Soliloquiorum) 386-387
Soul.c.M Of Two Souls, Against the Manichees (De duabus animabus contra Manichaeos) 392 / 393
Sp.L On the Spirit and the Letter (De spiritu et littera) 412
Trin. On the Trinity (De trinitate) 399-419
Virg. On Holy Virginity (De sancta virginate) 401

Baptism and Being “Born Again”

. . . born again by baptism; the generation by which we shall rise again from the dead, and shall live with the Angels for ever. (E.Ps., 135:13 [135, 11] )

As regards the question of baptism, that our being born again, cleansed, justified by the grace of God, should not be ascribed to the man who administered the sacrament, . . . (C.Pet., iii, 50, 62)

Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because, “Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” [John 3:3] Even an infant, therefore, must be imbued with the sacrament of regeneration, lest without it his would be an unhappy exit out of this life; and this baptism is not administered except for the remission of sins. (Sin.I.Bapt. ii, 43 [XXVII] )

. . . that life of the Spirit, in the newness of which they who are baptized are through God’s grace born again . . . (Sin.I.Bapt. ii, 45 [XXVIII])

For all persons run to church with their infants for no other reason in the world than that the original sin which is contracted in them by their first and natural birth may be cleansed by the regeneration of their second birth. (M.Concup. ii, 4)

Baptism and Justification

. . . the question of baptism, . . . justified by the grace of God, . . . (C.Pet., iii, 50, 62)

Baptism and Salvation

By all these considerations it is proved that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but that man’s salvation is made complete through the two together. (Bapt., iv, 25, 33)

The form of the sacrament is given through baptism, the form of righteousness through the gospel. Neither one without the other leads to the kingdom of heaven. (C.Pet., iii, 56, 68)

. . . that sacrament, namely, of baptism, which brings salvation . . . (Ep. 98 [1]: to Boniface [408] )

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than “salvation,” and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than life. . . . For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: “He saved us by the washing of regeneration?” [Titus 3:5] or from Peter’s statement: “The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us?” [1 Peter 3:21] (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 34 [XXIV] )

. . . being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 39 [XXVI] )

. . . the baptism of infants . . . is given to them not only for entrance into the kingdom of God, but also for attaining salvation and eternal life, which none can have without the kingdom of God, or without that union with the Saviour Christ, wherein He has redeemed us by His blood. (Sin.I.Bapt. ii, 1 [I] )

For if any one should ask of me whether we have been saved by baptism, I shall not be able to deny it, since the apostle says, “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” [Titus 3:5] But if he should ask whether by the same washing He has already absolutely in every way saved us, I shall answer: It is not so. Because the same apostle also says, “For we are saved by hope; but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, we with patience wait for it.” [Romans 8:24-25] Therefore the salvation of man is effected in baptism, because whatever sin he has derived from his parents is remitted, or whatever, moreover, he himself has sinned on his own account before baptism; but his salvation will hereafter be such that he cannot sin at all. (C.Ep.Pel. iii, 5)

Baptismal Regeneration

“Forgiveness of sins.” You have [this article of] the Creed perfectly in you when you receive Baptism. (Cat.Creed, 15)

. . . my initiation and washing by Your life-giving sacraments, confessing You, O Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins. So my cleansing was deferred, . . . (Conf. i, 11, 17)

But hast not Thou, O most merciful Lord, pardoned and remitted this sin also, with my others, so horrible and deadly, in the holy water? (Conf. ix, 2, 4)

. . . our conversion and regeneration by Your baptism, . . . (Conf. ix, 3, 6)

And what is regeneration in baptism, except the being renovated from the corruption of the old man? . . . since we say that he has been baptized in Christ, we confess that he has put on Christ; and if we confess this, we confess that he is regenerate. (Bapt., i, 11, 16)

But the possibility of regeneration through the office rendered by the will of another, when the child is presented to receive the sacred rite, is the work exclusively of the Spirit by whom the child thus presented is regenerated. . . . By the water, therefore, which holds forth the sacrament of grace in its outward form, and by the Spirit who bestows the benefit of grace in its inward power, cancelling the bond of guilt, and restoring natural goodness [reconcilians bonum naturæ;], the man deriving his first birth originally from Adam alone, is regenerated in Christ alone. (Ep. 98 [2]: to Boniface [408] )

. . . in infants original sin is remitted through baptism, . . . (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 9 [IX] )

Now, inasmuch as infants are not held bound by any sins of their own actual life, it is the guilt of original sin which is healed in them by the grace of Him who saves them by the laver of regeneration. (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 24 [XIX] )

. . . the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regeneration . . . (Sin.I.Bapt. ii, 43 [XXVII] )

. . . that which has secured the adhesion of the universal Church from the earliest times— that believing infants have obtained through the baptism of Christ the remission of original sin. (Sin.I.Bapt. iii, 9)

“Who forgives all your iniquities”: this is done in the sacrament of baptism. (Sp.L, 59)

. . . those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out . . . (City xiii, 7)

. . . there are two regenerations, . . . the one according to faith, and which takes place in the present life by means of baptism; the other according to the flesh, and which shall be accomplished in its incorruption and immortality by means of the great and final judgment (City xx, 6)

. . . that bath of regeneration, which they might have received and through which they might have been saved . . . (Nat., 4 [IV] )

. . . no man is justified unless he believes in Christ and is cleansed by His baptism. (Nat., 48 [XLI] )

And this is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism which is solemnized among us, that all who attain to this grace should die to sin, as He is said to have died to sin, because He died in the flesh, which is the likeness of sin; and rising from the font regenerate, as He arose alive from the grave, should begin a new life in the Spirit, . . . (Ench., 42)

. . . the grace of baptism, which is given as an antidote to original sin, so that what our birth imposes upon us, our new birth relieves us from (this grace, however, takes away all the actual sins also that have been committed in thought, word, and deed): . . . in which all our guilt, both original and actual, is washed away, (Ench., 64)

Live consistently, especially ye candidates of Christ, recently baptized, just regenerated, . . . (Serm., 96, 2 [CXLVI] )

Eucharist and Salvation

But what is to receive the cup of salvation, but to imitate the Passion of our Lord? I will receive the cup of Christ, I will drink of our Lord’s Passion. (E.Ps., 103:2 [103, 3] )

For such now also profess: Jesus has come near to them, has made salvation in them; for He said, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him.” [John 6:54] (L.John, 11, 4)

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that . . . the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than “life.” . . . And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper life, than that which is written: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven;” [John 6:51] and “The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;” [John 6:51] and “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you?” [John 6:53] (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 34 [XXIV] )

Is there anything, again, ambiguous in this: “Except men eat the flesh of the Son of man,” that is, become partakers of His body, “they shall not have life”? (Sin.I.Bapt. iii, 8)

If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God’s most righteous wrath— in a word, from punishment— except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ. (Nat., 2 [II] )

Faith Alone (Falsity of)

. . . we should not . . . be deceived by the name of Christ, by means of those who have the name and have not the deeds . . . (S.Mount ii, 25, 84)

And wherefore did our Lord Himself judge it necessary not only to say, “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” [Matthew 13:43] which shall come to pass after the end of the world, but also to exclaim, “Woe unto the world because of offenses!” [Matthew 18:7] if not to prevent us from flattering ourselves with the idea that we can reach the mansions of eternal felicity, unless we have overcome the temptation to yield when exercised by the afflictions of time? Why was it necessary for Him to say, “Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold,” if not in order that those of whom He spoke in the next sentence, “but he that shall endure to the end shall be saved,” [Matthew 24:12-13] . . . (Ep. 78 [1]: to the Church at Hippo [404] )

Who is he that believes not that Jesus is the Christ? He that does not so live as Christ commanded. For many say, “I believe”: but faith without works saves not. Now the work of faith is Love, . . . (H.1Jn, 10, 1)

But, they say, of that unbelief alone, whereby they believed not in Christ, he willed them to repent. Wonderful presumption! (I would not give it a heavier name,) when, upon that being heard which was said, Repent ye, it is said to have been of unbelief alone, whereas the evangelic teaching delivered a change of life from the old unto the new, wherein certainly that also is contained which the Apostle lays down in that sentence, Let him that stole, steal no more; and the rest, wherein he follows out what it is to lay aside the old man, and to put on the new. . . . Now therefore, if they will, let them endeavour to maintain, that he saves himself from this perverse generation, who only believes in Christ, although he continue in what scandalous sins soever he will, even unto the making profession of adultery. Which if it be impious to assert, let them who are to be baptized hear, not only what they ought to believe, but also how they may save themselves from this perverse generation. For in that case it is necessary that they hear how, believing, they ought to walk, . . . (F.Works, 13)

What the Lord Himself, to pass over other things, when that rich man sought of Him, what good thing he should do, that he might attain life eternal, let them call to mind what He answered; If thou wilt come, said He, unto life, keep the Commandments. [Matthew 19:17] But he said, What? Then the Lord made mention of the Commandments of the Law, Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not commit adultery, and the rest. Whereupon when he had made answer that he had performed these from his youth, He added also a Commandment of perfection, that he should sell all that he had, and give in alms unto the poor, and have treasure in heaven, and follow the same Lord. Let them then see that it was not said unto him that he should believe and be baptized, by the aid of which alone those men think that a man comes unto life; but commandments of morals were given unto the man, which certainly without faith cannot be guarded and observed. Neither, however, because in this place the Lord appears to have been silent as to the suggestion of faith, do we lay down and contend, that we are to state commandments of morals alone to men who desire to attain unto life. For both are connected the one with the other, as I said before; because neither can the love of God exist in a man who loveth not his neighbour, nor the love of his neighbour in him who loveth not God. And so at times we find that Scripture makes mention of the one without the other, either this or that, in place of the full doctrine, so that even in this way we may understand that the one cannot exist without the other: because both he who believes in God ought to do what God commands; and he who therefore does it because God commands it, must of necessity believe in God. (F.Works, 20)

But, say they, the Catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned. Let the Apostle James summarily reply to them: “If any man say he has faith, and have not works, can faith save him?” [James 2:14] (City xxi, 26)

The Lord then did not utter the words, “If you forgive men their trespasses, your Father will also forgive you your trespasses,” [Matthew 6:14] in order that we might contract from this petition such confidence as should enable us to sin securely from day to day, either putting ourselves above the fear of human laws, or craftily deceiving men concerning our conduct, but in order that we might thus learn not to suppose that we are without sins, . . . While, then, those who seek occasion from this petition to indulge in habitual sin maintain that the Lord meant to include great sins, because He did not say, He will forgive you your small sins, but “your sins,” we, on the other hand, taking into account the character of the persons He was addressing, cannot see our way to interpret the expression “your sins” of anything but small sins, because such persons are no longer guilty of great sins. (City xxi, 27)

It is believed, moreover, by some, that men who do not abandon the name of Christ, and who have been baptized in the Church by His baptism, and who have never been cut off from the Church by any schism or heresy, though they should live in the grossest sin and never either wash it away in penitence nor redeem it by almsgiving, but persevere in it persistently to the last day of their lives, shall be saved by fire; that is, that although they shall suffer a punishment by fire, lasting for a time proportionate to the magnitude of their crimes and misdeeds, they shall not be punished with everlasting fire. But those who believe this, and yet are Catholics, seem to me to be led astray by a kind of benevolent feeling natural to humanity. For Holy Scripture, when consulted, gives a very different answer. (Ench., 67)

. . . nor so defend and maintain grace as if, by reason of it, you may love evil works in security and safety,–which may God’s grace itself avert from you! Now it was the words of such as these which the apostle had in view when he said, “What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” And to this cavil of erring men, who know nothing about the grace of God, he returned such an answer as he ought in these words: “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Nothing could have been said more succinctly, and yet to the point. For what more useful gift does the grace of God confer upon us, in this present evil world, than our dying unto sin? (Ep. 215 [8]: to Valentinus [426] )

Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” [Romans 3:28] have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed “a vessel of election” by the apostle, who, after declaring that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision,” [Galatians 5:6] adds at once, “but faith which works by love.” (Grace.Free, 18)

And the apostle himself, after saying, “By grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;” [Ephesians 2:8-9] saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them; and again, the possibility of men’s boasting of their good works, as if they were of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these opinions on both sides, he immediately added, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.” [Ephesians 2:10] . . . Now, hear and understand. “Not of works” is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded (that is, has formed and created) you. For of these he says, “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” (Grace.Free, 20)

If then we desire to see God, whereby shall our eye be purified? For who would not care for, and diligently seek the means of purifying that eye whereby he may see Him whom he longs after with an entire affection? The Divine record has expressly mentioned this when it says, “purifying their hearts by faith.” The faith of God then purifies the heart, the pure heart sees God. But because this faith is sometimes so defined by men who deceive themselves, as though it were enough only to believe (for some promise themselves even the sight of God and the kingdom of heaven, who believe and live evilly); against these, the Apostle James, incensed and indignant as it were with a holy charity, says in his Epistle, “You believe there is one God.” Thou applaudest yourself for your faith, for you mark how that many ungodly men think there are gods many, and you rejoice in yourself because you believe that there is but one God; “You do well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” Shall they also see God? They shall see Him who are pure in heart. But who can say that unclean spirits are pure in heart? And yet they also “believe and tremble.” (Serm., 3, 10 [LIII] )

For if he depart not from iniquity, he belongs not to the kingdom of Christ, even though he name the Name of Christ. (Serm., 21, 4 [LXXI] )

Faith and Works

When you have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that you may guard your Baptism even unto the end. (Cat.Creed, 15)

The apostle had in view a spiritual structure, as he says elsewhere, “You are God’s building;” [1 Corinthians 3:9] and in this structure he found both a reason for joy and a reason for exertion. He rejoiced to see part already finished; and the necessity of bringing the edifice to perfection called for exertion. (C.Faust. i, 3)

Let us therefore not flatter the Catholic who is hemmed in with all these vices, nor venture, merely because he is a Catholic Christian, to promise him the impunity which holy Scripture does not promise him; nor, if he has any one of the faults above mentioned, ought we to promise him a partnership in that heavenly land. (Bapt., iv, 19, 27)

. . . He wills not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that works by love. [Galatians 5:6] (L.John, 25, 12)

. . . by means of the free-will naturally implanted within him, he enters on the way which is pointed out to him, and by persevering in a just and pious course of life, deserves to attain to the blessedness of eternal life. (Sp.L, 4)

Is it not because those very tables of the law were written by the finger of God, that the Spirit of God by whom we are sanctified is also the finger of God, in order that, living by faith, we may do good works through love? (Sp.L, 28 [XVI] )

Whence, therefore, arises this love—that is to say, this charity,— by which faith works, if not from the source whence faith itself obtained it? For it would not be within us, to what extent soever it is in us, if it were not diffused in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to us. [Romans 5:5] (Sp.L, 56)

But in these very words of Peter they have whence they might be admonished, if they would attend diligently. For after that he had said, Repent ye, and he baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For unto us is this promise and unto our children, and unto all who are afar off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call; the writer of the book straightway added and said, And with many other words testified he, saying, Save yourselves from this perverse generation. But they most eagerly caught and received his words, (and believed,) and were baptized; and there were added on that day three thousand souls. Who would not here understand, that in those many other words, on which, by reason of their length, the writer is silent, this was the object of Peter, that they should save themselves from this perverse generation; since the sentence itself is given briefly, in order to persuade to which Peter urged them with many words. The sum and substance, that is to say, was set down, when it was said, Save yourselves from this perverse generation. But, in order that this might be done, Peter with many words testified. Among these words was the condemnation of dead works, which they who love this world work evilly, and the setting forth of a good life, for them to hold and follow, who save themselves from this perverse generation. (F.Works, 13)

When therefore the Apostle says, that he judges that a man is justified through faith without the works of the law; this is not his object, that, after the delivery and profession of faith, works of righteousness be despised, but that each man may know that he can be justified through faith, although the works of the law have not gone before. For they follow after one who is justified, not go before one who shall be justified. . . . Whereas therefore this opinion had at that time arisen, other Apostolic Epistles of Peter, John, James, and Jude, direct their aim chiefly against it, so as with vehemence to maintain that faith without works profiteth not: in like manner as Paul himself hath laid down, that not any faith whatsoever whereby God is believed in, but that whose works proceed of love, is saving, and truly according to the Gospel; And faith, he says, which worketh through love. Whence that faith which seems to some to be sufficient unto salvation, he so asserts to be of no avail, as that he says, If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. But where faithful love worketh, there without doubt is a good life, for love is the fulness of the law. (F.Works, 21)

And lest it should be thought that good works will be wanting in those who believe, he adds further: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.” [Eph 2:10] (Ench., 31)

I have written a book on this subject, entitled Of Faith and Works, in which, to the best of my ability, God assisting me, I have shown from Scripture, that the faith which saves us is that which the Apostle Paul clearly enough describes when he says: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which works by love.” [Galatians 5:6] But if it works evil, and not good, then without doubt, as the Apostle James says, “it is dead, being alone.” [James 2:17] The same apostle says again, “What does it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” [James 2:14] And further, if a wicked man shall be saved by fire on account of his faith alone, and if this is what the blessed Apostle Paul means when he says, “But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire;” [1 Corinthians 3:15] then faith without works can save a man, and what his fellow-apostle James says must be false. And that must be false which Paul himself says in another place: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners; shall inherit the kingdom of God.” [1 Corinthians 6:9-10] For if those who persevere in these wicked courses shall nevertheless be saved on account of their faith in Christ, how can it be true that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God? (Ench., 67)

Therefore, the apostle having said, “You are saved through faith,” [Ephesians 2:8] added, “And that not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God.” And again, lest they should say they deserved so great a gift by their works, he immediately added, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” [Ephesians 2:9] Not that he denied good works, or emptied them of their value, when he says that “God renders to every man according to his works” [Romans 2:6]; but because works proceed from faith, and not faith from works. Therefore it is from Him that we have works of righteousness, from whom comes also faith itself . . . (Grace.Free, 17)

But perhaps it may be said: “The apostle distinguishes faith from works; he says, indeed, that grace is not of works, but he does not say that it is not of faith.” This, indeed, is true. But Jesus says that faith itself also is the work of God, and commands us to work it. For the Jews said to Him, “What shall we do that we may work the work of God? Jesus answered, and said unto them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.’” [John 6:28] (Pred., 12 [VII] )

Judgment and Works

Next, in what manner is that true which He will say unto them whom He will set on his left hand, Go ye into everlasting fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels? Whom He rebukes, not because they have not believed in Him, but because they have not done good works. For assuredly, in order that no man may promise unto himself life everlasting, of faith, which without works is dead, therefore said He that He will separate all nations, which were mixed together, and were wont to use the same pastures: that it may be evident, that they will say unto Him, Lord, when saw we Thee suffering this and that, and ministered not unto Thee, who had believed in Him, but had not been careful to do good works, as if of their very dead faith they should attain unto eternal life. What? and will they haply, who have omitted to do works of mercy, go into everlasting fire . . . (F.Works, 25)

He judges, too, not only in the mass, condemning the race of devils and the race of men to be miserable on account of the original sin of these races, but He also judges the voluntary and personal acts of individuals. . . . men are punished by God for their sins often visibly, always secretly, either in this life or after death . . . (City xx, 1)

In another place, again, He tells us that He will come with His angels in His majesty; and before Him shall be gathered all nations, and He shall separate them one from another; some He will set on His right hand, and after enumerating their good works, will award to them eternal life; and others on His left hand, whose barrenness in all good works He will expose, will He condemn to everlasting fire. [Matthew 25:33] In two other passages He deals with that wicked and slothful servant, who neglected to trade with His money, [Luke 19:20-24] and with the man who was found at the feast without the wedding garment—and He orders them to be bound hand and foot, and to be cast into outer darkness. [Matthew 22:11-13] And in yet another scripture, after admitting the five virgins who were wise, He shuts the door against the other five foolish ones. [Matthew 25:1-10] Now these descriptions—and there are others which at the instant do not occur to me—are all intended to represent to us the future judgment . . . by the many descriptions which are scattered throughout the Holy Scriptures there is signified to us but one mode of final judgment, which is inscrutable to us—with only the variety of deservings preserved in the rewards and punishments. (P.Pel., 11)

Justification, Imputed (Initial)

. . . through the merciful deliverance of Him who justifies the ungodly, imputing to him a reward according to grace, not according to debt. For among this number is the apostle, who says, “I obtained mercy to be faithful.” [1 Corinthians 7:25] (City xxi, 27)

Justification, Infused (Sanctification)

For the soul is raised up again by repentance, and the renewing of life is begun in the body still mortal by faith, by which men believe in Him who justifies the ungodly; and it is increased and strengthened by good habits from day to day, as the inner man is renewed more and more. (Trin. iv, 3, 5)

Therein is our true peace and firm bond of union with our Creator, that we should be purified and reconciled through the Mediator of life, as we had been polluted and alienated, and so had departed from Him, through the mediator of death. (Trin. iv, 10, 13)

. . . the mind must be purged by faith, by more and more abstaining from sins, and by doing good works, and by praying with the groaning of holy desires; that by profiting through the divine help, it may both understand and love. (Trin. iv, 21, 31)

Certainly this renewal does not take place in the single moment of conversion itself, as that renewal in baptism takes place in a single moment by the remission of all sins; for not one, be it ever so small, remains unremitted. But as it is one thing to be free from fever, and another to grow strong again from the infirmity which the fever produced; and one thing again to pluck out of the body a weapon thrust into it, and another to heal the wound thereby made by a prosperous cure; so the first cure is to remove the cause of infirmity, and this is wrought by the forgiving of all sins; but the second cure is to heal the infirmity itself, and this takes place gradually by making progress in the renewal of that image: which two things are plainly shown in the Psalm, where we read, Who forgives all your iniquities, which takes place in baptism; and then follows, and heals all your infirmities; and this takes place by daily additions, while this image is being renewed. And the apostle has spoken of this most expressly, saying, And though our outward man perish, yet the inner man is renewed day by day. And it is renewed in the knowledge of God, i.e. in righteousness and true holiness, according to the testimonies of the apostle cited a little before. (Trin. xiv, 17, 23)

But it may be inquired how they were no more of the world, if they were not yet sanctified in the truth; or, if they already were, why He requests that they should be so. Is it not because even those who are sanctified still continue to make progress in the same sanctification, and grow in holiness; and do not so without the aid of God’s grace, but by His sanctifying of their progress, even as He sanctified their outset? And hence the apostle likewise says: “He who has begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” [Philippians 1:6] (L.John, 108, 2)

For the man here has had sins: but from the time that he was born of God, he has begun not to have sins. If it were so, there would be no question to embarrass us. For we should say, “We have been sinners, but now we are justified: we have had sin, but now we have none.” (H.1Jn, 5, 1)

But whosoever shall put his trust in Him, and yield himself up to Him, for the forgiveness of all his sins, for the cure of all his corruption, and for the kindling and illumination of his soul by His warmth and light, shall have good works by his grace; and by them he shall be even in his body redeemed from the corruption of death, crowned, satisfied with blessings,— not temporal, but eternal—above what we can ask or understand. (Sp.L, 58)

These are the diseases of a man’s old nature which, however, if we only advance with persevering purpose, are healed by the growth of the new nature day by day, by the faith which operates through love. (Sp.L, 59)

. . . whatever be the quality or extent of the righteousness which we may definitely ascribe to the present life, there is not a man living in it who is absolutely free from all sin; and that it is necessary for every one to give, that it may be given to him; and to forgive, that it may be forgiven him; [Luke 11:4] and whatever righteousness he has, not to presume that he has it of himself, but from the grace of God, who justifies him, and still to go on hungering and thirsting for righteousness [Matthew 5:6] from Him who is the living bread, [John 6:51] and with whom is the fountain of life; who works in His saints, while labouring amidst temptation in this life, their justification in such manner that He may still have somewhat to impart to them liberally when they ask, and something mercifully to forgive them when they confess. (Sp.L, 65)

Let us therefore take diligent heed, by the help of our Lord God, that we cause not in men an evil security, by telling them, that, if they shall have been baptized in Christ, of what nature soever their lives in that faith shall have been, they shall come unto eternal salvation; that we make not Christians in the manner in which the Jews made proselytes, unto whom the Lord says, Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, who compass sea and land to make one proselyte; but after ye have made him, ye make him a child of hell twofold more than yourselves. But let us rather hold the sound doctrine of God our Master in both things; that there be a Christian life in harmony with holy Baptism, and that eternal life be promised to no man, if either be wanting. For He who said, Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven; Himself also said, Except your righteousness shall abound above that of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Of them it is that He saith, The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; what things they say, do ye; but what they do, do ye not; for they say and do not. Therefore their righteousness is to say and not do; and thus He willed that ours should be abundant above theirs, to say and do; which if it shall not be, there shall be no entrance into the kingdom of heaven. (F.Works, 48)

. . . it is that we may cleave to Him, that we are cleansed from all stain of sins and evil passions, and are consecrated in His name. (City x, 3)

. . . the man Christ Jesus, by whom we are reconciled to God, the cleansing from sin being accomplished. For men are separated from God only by sins, from which we are in this life cleansed not by our own virtue, but by the divine compassion; through His indulgence, not through our own power. For, whatever virtue we call our own is itself bestowed upon us by His goodness. . . . there has been vouchsafed to us, through the Mediator, this grace, that we who are polluted by sinful flesh should be cleansed by the likeness of sinful flesh. (City x, 22)

For in proportion as a man loves what Christ disapproves does he himself abandon Christ. For what does it profit a man that he is baptized, if he is not justified? Did not He who said, “Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God,” [John 3:5] say also, “Unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven?” [Matthew 5:20] (City xxi, 27)

As therefore, for example’s sake, a man who is lamed by a wound is cured in order that his step for the future may be direct and strong, its past infirmity being healed, so does the Heavenly Physician cure our maladies, not only that they may cease any longer to exist, but in order that we may ever afterwards be able to walk aright—to which we should be unequal, even after our healing, except by His continued help. . . . For, just as the eye of the body, even when completely sound, is unable to see unless aided by the brightness of light, so also man, even when most fully justified, is unable to lead a holy life, if he be not divinely assisted by the eternal light of righteousness. God, therefore, heals us not only that He may blot out the sin which we have committed, but, furthermore, that He may enable us even to avoid sinning. (Nat., 29 [XXVI] )

. . . it is our duty at once to be thankful for what is already healed within us, and to pray for such further healing as shall enable us to enjoy full liberty, in that most absolute state of health which is incapable of addition, the perfect pleasure of God. For we do not deny that human nature can be without sin; nor ought we by any means to refuse to it the ability to become perfect, since we admit its capacity for progress—by God’s grace, however, through our Lord Jesus Christ. By His assistance we aver that it becomes holy and happy, by whom it was created in order to be so. (Nat., 68 [LVIII] )

If God wished not that man should be without sin, He would not have sent His Son without sin, to heal men of their sins. This takes place in believers who are being renewed day by day, [2 Corinthians 4:16] until their righteousness becomes perfect, like fully restored health. (Perf., 3, 7)

. . . he has kept God’s ways who does not so turn aside as to forsake them, but makes progress by running his course therein; although, weak as he is, he sometimes stumbles or falls, onward, however, he still goes, sinning less and less until he reaches the perfect state in which he will sin no more. For in no other way could he make progress, except by keeping His ways. (Perf., 11, 27)

“And every man that has this hope towards Him purifies himself, even as He is pure,” [1 John 3:3] — purifies himself, not indeed by himself alone, but by believing in Him, and calling on Him who sanctifies His saints; which sanctification, when perfected at last (for it is at present only advancing and growing day by day), shall take away from us for ever all the remains of our infirmity. (Perf., 18, 39)

. . . the unrighteous man is justified, that is, becomes just instead of impious, and begins to possess that good desert which God will crown when the world shall be judged. (Ep. 214 [4]: to Valentinus [426] )

This is the advice of the Apostle Paul, who, after saying that he was not yet perfect, [Philippians 3:12] a little later adds, “Let us, therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded,” [Philippians 3:15] — meaning perfect to a certain extent, but not having attained to a perfection sufficient for us . . . (Grace.Free, 1 [I] )

Merit

God, through whom we disapprove the error of those, who think that there are no merits of souls before You. (Sol. i, 3)

A crown of victory is not promised, save to them who strive. (Confl., 1)

And according to the cleanness of My deeds He will recompense Me, who has given Me to do well by bringing Me forth into the broad place of faith. (E.Ps., 18:20 [18:21] )

. . . not only for the breadth of faith, which works by love; but also for the length of perseverance, will the Lord reward Me according to My righteousness. (E.Ps., 18:24 [18:25] )

. . . let me say to every man that is to be born, nothing you are by yourself, on God call thou, your own are sins, merits are God’s: punishment to you is owing, and when reward shall have come, His own gifts He will crown, not your merits. (E.Ps., 71:19 [71, 22] )

. . . cures more frequent by the merits of Martyrs. (E.Ps., 119:157 [119, 155] )

Since those also which are called our deserts, are His gifts. For, that faith may work by love, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. (Trin. xiii, 10, 14)

. . . it was not the sacrament, but the personal merit that was different in the two cases. (C.Pet., ii, 47, 110)

For I would ask whether you use the Lord’s prayer in your devotions? For if you do not use that prayer, which our Lord taught His disciples for their use, where have you learned another, proportioned to your merits, as exceeding the merits of the apostles? (C.Pet., ii, 104, 237)

For if the sanctity of baptism be according to the diversity of merits in them that administer it, then as merits are diverse there will be diverse baptisms; and the recipient will imagine that what he receives is so much the better, the better he appears to be from whom he received it. . . . Therefore if one receive baptism from him, for example, who is a righteous saint, another from another who is of inferior merit with God, of inferior degree, of inferior continence, of inferior life, how notwithstanding is that which they receive one, equal and like . . .? (L.John, 6, 8)

Merit is accumulating now to the believer, and then the reward is paid into the hand of the beholder. . . . As far as each one has been a partaker of You, some less, some more, such will be the diversity of rewards in proportion to the diversity of merits . . . (L.John, 68, 3)

He crowns, therefore, with loving-kindness and tender mercy; but even so according to works. (Sp.L, 59)

. . . the merit which is bestowed upon each man by divine grace. (City xx, 21)

God by nature cannot sin, but the partaker of God receives this inability from God. And in this divine gift there was to be observed this gradation, that man should first receive a free will by which he was able not to sin, and at last a free will by which he was not able to sin—the former being adapted to the acquiring of merit, the latter to the enjoying of the reward. (City xxii, 30)

It is after this life, indeed, that the reward of perfection is bestowed, but only upon those by whom in their present life has been acquired the merit of such a recompense. (Perf., 8, 17)

Their own crown is recompensed to their merits; but your merits are the gifts of God! (P.Pel., 35)

For there are whom these things aid nothing at all, namely, when they are done either for persons whose merits are so evil, that neither by such things are they worthy to be aided; or for persons whose merits are so good, that of such things they have no need as aids. (Dead, 2)

Therefore, it is in this life that all the merit or demerit is acquired, which can either relieve or aggravate a man’s sufferings after this life. No one, then, need hope that after he is dead he shall obtain merit with God which he has neglected to secure here. (Ench., 110)

The good, indeed, shall receive their reward according to the merits of their own good-will, but then they received this very good-will through the grace of God . . . (Ep. 215 [1]: to Valentinus [426] )

But it is plain that when it has been given, also our good merits begin to be—yet only by means of it; for, were that only to withdraw itself, man falls, not raised up, but precipitated by free will. Wherefore no man ought, even when he begins to possess good merits, to attribute them to himself, but to God, . . . even after he has become justified by faith, grace should accompany him on his way, and he should lean upon it, lest he fall. (Grace.Free, 13 [VI] )

Let us see what he says when his final sufferings were approaching, writing to Timothy: “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith.” [2 Timothy 4:6-7] He enumerates these as, of course, now his good merits; so that, as after his evil merits he obtained grace, so now, after his good merits, he might receive the crown. Observe, therefore, what follows: “There is henceforth laid up for me,” he says, “a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day.” [2 Timothy 4:8] (Grace.Free, 14)

If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts. (Grace.Free, 15)

. . . since even that life eternal itself, which, it is certain, is given as due to good works, is called by so great an apostle the grace of God, although grace is not rendered to works, but is given freely, it must be confessed without any doubt, that eternal life is called grace for the reason that it is rendered to those merits which grace has conferred upon man. (Reb.Gr., 41)

. . . the grace of God is not given according to our merits; because even every one of the merits of the righteous is God’s gift, and is conferred by God’s grace. . . . merits of the saints, then, which are no merits unless they are the gifts of God, . . . (Persev., 4)

. . . “you He crowns with pity and mercy;” and if your own merits have gone before, God says to you, “Examine well your merits, and you shall see that they are My gifts.” (Serm., 81, 8 [CXXXI])

Sacraments and Grace

. . . grace, which is the virtue of the Sacraments, . . . (E.Ps., 78:1 [78, 2] )

Wherefore God gives the sacrament of grace even through the hands of wicked men, but the grace itself only by Himself or through His saints. (Bapt., v, 21, 29)

. . . even when spiritual grace is dispensed to those that believe by the hands of a holy and faithful minister, it is still not the minister himself who justifies, but that One of whom it is said, that “He justifies the ungodly?” [Romans 4:5] (C.Pet., i, 5, 6)

Sacraments and Salvation

The Sacraments of the New Testament give Salvation . . . (E.Ps., [74, 1] )

For salvation is peculiar to the good; but the sacraments are common to the good and bad alike. (Bapt., vii, 33, 65)

. . . the sacraments of the Church, without which there is no entrance to the life which is the true life. (L.John, 120, 2)

Good is it for us that we love not the world, lest the sacraments remain in us unto damnation, not as means of strengthening unto salvation. (H.1Jn, 2, 9)

Suffering, Redemptive (Participation in Christ’s Suffering)

The sufferings therefore of Christ are not in Christ alone; nay, there are not any save in Christ. For if Christ you understand to be Head and Body, the sufferings of Christ are not, save in Christ: but if Christ thou understand of Head alone, the sufferings of Christ are not in Christ alone. For if the sufferings of Christ are in Christ alone, to wit in the Head alone; whence says a certain member of Him, Paul the Apostle, “In order that I may supply what are wanting of the oppressions of Christ in my flesh”? [Colossians 1:24] If therefore in the members of Christ you are, whatsoever man you are that art hearing these words, whosoever you are that dost hear these words (but however, you hear, if in the members of Christ you are): whatsoever thing you suffer from those that are not in the members of Christ, was wanting to the sufferings of Christ. Therefore it is added because it was wanting; you fill up the measure, you cause it not to run over: you suffer so much as was to be contributed out of your sufferings to the whole suffering of Christ, that has suffered in our Head, and does suffer in His members, that is, in our own selves. Unto this our common republic, as it were each of us according to our measure pays that which we owe, and according to the powers which we have, as it were a quota of sufferings we contribute. The storehouse of all men’s sufferings will not be completely made up, save when the world shall have been ended . . . (E.Ps., [62, 2])

For this purpose he briefly sketches in what follows the troubles of Christ’s body. For it is not in the Head alone that they took place, since it is said to Saul too, “Why do you persecute Me?” [Acts 9:4] and Paul himself, as if placed as an elect member in the same body, says, “That I may fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh.” [Colossians 1:24] (E.Ps., 88:14 [88, 13] )

Synergy: Cooperation with God’s Grace as “Co-Laborers”

We believe also, that On the Third Day He Rose Again from The Dead, the first-begotten for brethren destined to come after Him, whom He has called into the adoption of the sons of God, whom [also] He has deemed it meet to make His own joint-partners and joint-heirs. (F.Creed, 5, 12)

. . . the grace of God, which does work not only remission of sins, but also does make the spirit of man to work together therewith in the work of good deeds, . . . To believe in God therefore is this, in believing to cleave unto God who works good works, in order to work with Him well. (E.Ps., 78:8 [78, 7] )

. . . these same saints shall rest also in Him after all the good works in which they have served Him—which He Himself, indeed, works in them, who calls them, and instructs them, and puts away the offenses that are past, and justifies the man who previously was ungodly. For as, when by His gift they work that which is good, He is Himself rightly said to work (that in them) . . . (Cat.U., 17, 28)

But God crowns in us the gifts of His own mercy; but on condition that we walk with perseverance in that grace which in the first instance we received. (L.John, 3, 10)

But there are also in the heavens, thrones, governments, principalities, powers, archangels, and angels, which are all of them the work of Christ; and is it, then, greater works also than these that he does, who, with Christ working in him, is a co-worker in his own eternal salvation and justification? I dare not call for any hurried decision on such a point: let him who can, understand, and let him who can, judge whether it is a greater work to create righteous beings than to make righteous the ungodly. . . . And it is assuredly something less to preach the words of righteousness, which He did apart from us, than to justify the ungodly, which He does in such a way in us that we also are doing it ourselves. (L.John, 72, 3)

Continue, for He continues: and persevere in walking, that you may reach the goal: for that to which you tend will not remove. See: “And every one that has this hope in Him, purifies himself even as He is pure.” See how he has not taken away free-will, in that he says, “purifies himself.” Who purifies us but God? Yea, but God does not purify you if you be unwilling. Therefore, in that you join your will to God, in that you purify yourself. Thou purifiest yourself, not by yourself, but by Him who comes to inhabit you. Still, because you do somewhat therein by the will, therefore is somewhat attributed to you. (H.1Jn, 4, 7)

God is said to be “our Helper;” but nobody can be helped who does not make some effort of his own accord. For God does not work our salvation in us as if he were working in insensate stones, or in creatures in whom nature has placed neither reason nor will. (Sin.I.Bapt. ii, 6)

. . . to lead a holy life is the gift of God—not only because God has given a free-will to man, without which there is no living ill or well; nor only because He has given him a commandment to teach him how he ought to live; but because through the Holy Ghost He sheds love abroad in the hearts [Romans 7:7] of those whom he foreknew . . . even man’s righteousness must be attributed to the operation of God, although not taking place without man’s will; and we therefore cannot deny that his perfection is possible even in this life, because all things are possible with God, [Mark 10:27] — both those which He accomplishes of His own sole will, and those which He appoints to be done with the cooperation with Himself of His creature’s will. (Sp.L, 7 [V] )

. . . they are justified freely by His grace—not that it is wrought without our will . . . (Sp.L, 15 [IX] )

We must therefore avoid saying, that the way in which God assists us to work righteousness, and “works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure,” [Philippians 2:13] is by externally addressing to our faculties precepts of holiness; for He gives His increase internally, [1 Corinthians 3:7] by shedding love abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us. [Romans 5:5] (Sp.L, 42 [XXV] )

Now this that the apostle says, “It is God that works in you both to will and to do of His own good pleasure,” [Philippians 2:13] belongs already to that grace which faith secures, in order that good works may be within the reach of man—even the good works which faith achieves through the love which is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost which is given to us. (Sp.L, 57 [XXXIII] )

We run, therefore, whenever we make advance; . . . in order that we may be in every respect perfect, without any infirmity of sin whatever—a result which God not only wishes, but even causes and helps us to accomplish. And this God’s grace does, in co-operation with ourselves, through Jesus Christ our Lord, as well by commandments, sacraments, and examples, as by His Holy Spirit also . . . (Perf., 20, 43)

For who indeed could condemn or deny the freedom of the will, when God’s help is associated with it? . . . And our free will can do nothing better for us than to submit itself to be led by Him who can do nothing amiss; and after doing this, not to doubt that it was helped to do it by Him . . . (P.Pel., 4 [II] )

The apostle, however, holds the contrary, when he says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” [Philippians 2:12] And that they might be sure that it was not simply in their being able to work (for this they had already received in nature and in teaching), but in their actual working, that they were divinely assisted, the apostle does not say to them, “For it is God that works in you to be able,” as if they already possessed volition and operation among their own resources, without requiring His assistance in respect of these two; but he says, “For it is God which works in you both to will and to perform of His own good pleasure;” [Philippians 2:13] or, as the reading runs in other copies, especially the Greek, “both to will and to operate.” Consider, now, whether the apostle did not thus long before foresee by the Holy Ghost that there would arise adversaries of the grace of God; and did not therefore declare that God works within us those two very things, even “willing” and “operating,” which this man so determined to be our own, as if they were in no wise assisted by the help of divine grace. (Grace.Orig. i, 6 [V] )

. . . we have now proved by our former testimonies from Holy Scripture that there is in man a free determination of will for living rightly and acting rightly; so now let us see what are the divine testimonies concerning the grace of God, without which we are not able to do any good thing. (Grace.Free, 7)

If he should say in respect of these commandments, I wish to keep them, but am mastered by my concupiscence, then the Scripture responds to his free will, as I have already said: “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” [Romans 12:21] In order, however, that this victory may be gained, grace renders its help . . . the victory in which sin is vanquished is nothing else than the gift of God, who in this contest helps free will. (Grace.Free, 8)

. . . a man is assisted by grace, in order that his will may not be uselessly commanded. (Grace.Free, 9)

And it was while he had this evil merit that a good one was rendered to him instead of the evil; and, therefore, he went on at once to say, “But by the grace of God I am what I am.” [1 Corinthians 15:10] Then, in order to exhibit also his free will, he added in the next clause, “And His grace within me was not in vain, but I have laboured more abundantly than they all.” This free will of man he appeals to in the case of others also, as when he says to them, “We beseech you that you receive not the grace of God in vain.” [2 Corinthians 6:1] Now, how could he so enjoin them, if they received God’s grace in such a manner as to lose their own will? Nevertheless, lest the will itself should be deemed capable of doing any good thing without the grace of God, after saying, “His grace within me was not in vain, but I have laboured more abundantly than they all,” he immediately added the qualifying clause, “Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” [1 Corinthians 15:10] In other words, Not I alone, but the grace of God with me. And thus, neither was it the grace of God alone, nor was it he himself alone, but it was the grace of God with him. (Grace.Free, 12)

It is not, however, to be for a moment supposed, because he said, “It is God that works in you both to will and to do of his own good pleasure,” [Philippians 2:13] that free will is taken away. If this, indeed, had been his meaning, he would not have said just before, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” [Philippians 2:12] For when the command is given “to work,” their free will is addressed; and when it is added, “with fear and trembling,” they are warned against boasting of their good deeds as if they were their own, by attributing to themselves the performance of anything good. (Grace.Free, 21 [IX] )

It is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us act, by applying efficacious powers to our will, who has said, “I will make you to walk in my statutes, and to observe my judgments, and to do them.” [Ezekiel 36:27] (Grace.Free, 32 [XVI] )

He operates, therefore, without us, in order that we may will; but when we will, and so will that we may act, He co-operates with us. We can, however, ourselves do nothing to effect good works of piety without Him either working that we may will, or co-working when we will. Now, concerning His working that we may will, it is said: “It is God which works in you, even to will.” [Philippians 2:13] While of His co-working with us, when we will and act by willing, the apostle says, “We know that in all things there is co-working for good to them that love God.” [Romans 8:28] (Grace.Free, 33 [XVII] )

. . . “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that works in us both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” [Philippians 2:12-13] We therefore will, but God works in us to will also. We therefore work, but God works in us to work also for His good pleasure. (Pred., 33)

Total Depravity (Falsity of); Human Nature

. . . let them cease to say and to teach that there are two kinds of souls, one of which has nothing of evil, the other nothing of good . . . (Soul.c.M, 14)

. . . every nature, as far as it is nature, is good; since in one and the same thing in which I found something to praise, and he found something to blame, if the good things are taken away, no nature will remain; but if the disagreeable things are taken away, the nature will remain unimpaired. (C.Fund.M, 33, 36)

. . . enough has been said to show that corruption does harm only as displacing the natural condition; and so, that corruption is not nature, but against nature. And if corruption is the only evil to be found anywhere, and if corruption is not nature, no nature is evil. (C.Fund.M, 35, 39)

. . . God’s image has not been so completely erased in the soul of man by the stain of earthly affections, as to have left remaining there not even the merest lineaments of it . . . what was impressed on their hearts when they were created in the image of God has not been wholly blotted out . . . this writing in the heart is effected by renovation, although it had not been completely blotted out by the old nature. . . . the law of God, which had not been wholly blotted out there by unrighteousness . . . (Sp.L, 48)

. . . no one is evil by nature, but whoever is evil is evil by vice . . . (City xiv, 6)

. . . evil cannot exist without good, because the natures in which evil exists, in so far as they are natures, are good. (City xiv, 11)

. . . there is, owing to the defects that have entered our nature, not to the constitution of our nature, a certain necessary tendency to sin . . . (Nat., 79 [LXVI] )

And in the same way, just as an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, so an evil will cannot produce good works. But from the nature of man, which is good, may spring either a good or an evil will. And certainly there was at first no source from which an evil will could spring, except the nature of angel or of man, which was good. (Ench., 15)

Works, Good (in Grace)

But as regards this point, that those who have been pleased with your good deeds should imitate you, we are to act before the eyes not only of believers, but also of unbelievers, so that by our good works, which are to be praised, they may honour God, and may come to salvation. (S.Mount ii, 2, 6)

. . . in order that good works may follow, faith does precede; and there are not any good works, save those which follow faith preceding . . . (E.Ps., 68:32 [68, 37] )

If the love of the Father abide not in you, you are not born of God. How do you boast to be a Christian? You have the name, and hast not the deeds. But if the work shall follow the name, let any call you pagan, show by deeds that you are a Christian. For if by deeds you do not show yourself a Christian, all men may call you a Christian yet; what does the name profit you where the thing is not forthcoming? (H.1Jn, 5, 12)

When any Christian has begun to live well, to be fervent in good works, and to despise the world; in this newness of his life he is exposed to the animadversions and contradictions of cold Christians. But if he persevere, and get the better of them by his endurance, and faint not in good works; those very same persons who before hindered will now respect him. For they rebuke, and hinder, and withstand him so long as they have any hope that he will yield to them. But if they shall be overcome by their perseverance who make progress, they turn round and begin to say, “He is a great man, a holy man, happy he to whom God has given such grace.” (Serm., 38, 18 [LXXXVIII] )

***

Summary: I compile extensive writings from St. Augustine (354-430): all of which express his opposition to the novel 16th century innovation of “faith alone”.