Vs. Turretin #10: Sanctification

Last updated on: May 7, 2024 at 3:42 pm By Dave Armstrong

François Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan-Italian Reformed scholastic theologian and renowned defender of the Calvinistic (Reformed) orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and was one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. His Institutes of Elenctic Theology (three volumes, Geneva, 1679–1685) used the scholastic method. “Elenctic” means “refuting an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion.” Turretin contended against the conflicting Christian perspectives of Catholicism and Arminianism. It was a popular textbook; notably at Princeton Theological Seminary, until it was replaced by Charles Hodge‘s Systematic Theology in the late 19th century. Turretin also greatly influenced the Puritans.

This is a reply to a portion of Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2, 17th Topic: Sanctification and Good Works). I utilize the edition translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 1992 / 1994 / 1997; 2320 pages). It uses the KJV for Bible verses. I will use RSV unless otherwise indicated. All installments of this series of replies can be found on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, under the category, “Replies to Francois Turretin (1632-1687).” Turretin’s words will be in blue.

***

First Question

What is sanctification and how is it distinguished from justification, yet inseparable from it?

I. As Christ was made to us of God righteousness and sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30)—not dividedly, but conjointly; not confusedly, but distinctly—so the benefit of sanctification immediately follows justification as inseparably connected with it, but yet really distinct from it.

Protestants (particularly Reformed ones) make a sharp distinction between justification and sanctification (whereas Catholics — following Holy Scripture — combine them). For Protestants, works of sanctification have — in the final analysis — nothing to do with salvation. They are done in thankfulness for a justification already attained. Thus, Turretin writes a bit later:

God makes us first new creatures by regeneration; then we show that we are regenerated by our new obedience (as these acts are distinguished in Eph. 2:10; Ezk. 36:26; Jer. 32:39). . . . The actual laying aside of vices and the correction of life and morals follow regeneration, as its proper effects (Gal. 5:22, 23; Col. 3:5). . . . Scripture has frequently distinguished these benefits (1 Cor. 1:30; 6:11; Tit. 3:5; Rev. 22:11).

But the formal separation is not a biblical distinction, as I will show again and again. Let’s look at the Bible passages Turretin sets forth as alleged proof of his view:

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

This is itself doesn’t prove the formal separation of justification and sanctification. It is stating that the justified person or disciple of Christ will do good works. All agree on that. But it doesn’t establish Protestant soteriology. In the previous two verses, Paul wrote:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — [9] not because of works, lest any man should boast.

This is consistent with his overall teaching. See: St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]. When Paul writes that we’re “not” saved “because of works” (Eph 2:9), he is denying works salvation. But in Ephesians 2:10 he shows that works are part of the overall equation. They can’t save us by themselves, but neither can or does faith. They have to function together, with both being caused by God’s prior grace. Ephesians 2:8-10 presents the whole package, and it’s thoroughly Catholic. It’s our “three-legged stool” of salvation: grace, faith, and works.

Ezekiel 36:25-27 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. [26] A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. [27] And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

Jeremiah 32:39-41 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. [40] I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. [41] I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.

Again, God cleanses us and indwells us, and we do good works. But this is completely harmonious with the Catholic view of an organic connection between justification and sanctification. It doesn’t prove the Protestant view over against ours. We would contend that the justified person does the good works precisely because of the prior organic connection.

Galatians 5:22-25 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. [24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [25] If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

Colossians 3:1-2, 5 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. [2] Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. . . . [5] Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Paul is saying that those who have the Holy Spirit simply do these things. They flow from the nature of the indwelling Holy Spirit. This seems altogether organic and connected by nature. It’s a somewhat subtle distinction, but a real one. Of course, the good works are later in time than initial justification, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t intrinsically connected.

1 Corinthians 1:30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Revelation 22:11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”

These are clear expressions of organic, intrinsic connection of justification and sanctification. It’s difficult to understand why anyone would think otherwise.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

Paul reiterates that we are not saved by works alone and that God’s grace is the ultimate cause (cf. 2:11). But in the same letter he writes five times that good works are part of the whole package:

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

Titus 2:7 Show yourself in all respects a model of good deeds, and in your teaching show integrity, gravity,

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Titus 3:8 The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.

Titus 3:14 And let our people learn to apply themselves to good deeds, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not to be unfruitful.

Nor could Paul so often have denied that we are justified by works if justification is the same as sanctification;

He could do so if what he meant in those “negative” passages was Jewish works of Mosaic Law, as the New Perspective on Paul (a Protestant school of thought) maintains.

The former [justification] consists in the judicial and forensic act of remission of sin and imputation of righteousness; the latter [sanctification] in the physical and moral act of the infusion of righteousness and internal renovation.

This plainly states the anti-traditional, innovative Protestant conception of sanctification: imputed justification and infused sanctification. Catholicism holds that both are infused.

sanctification is indeed begun in this life, but is perfected only in the other. . . . by degrees and successively.

If it’s perfected in the afterlife; indeed, even “by degrees and successively”: how is that to be distinguished from purgatory?

Although we think that these two benefits should be distinguished and never confounded, still they are so connected from the order of God and the nature of the thing that they should never be torn asunder.

This is the sense in which the two competing views are actually quite similar (almost merely abstractly or conceptually distinct), in terms of practical application to life. I have often noted this and rejoiced in it. I argue for the Catholic viewpoint, but at the same time recognize that the two views are very close to each other.

This is clearly evident even from this—that they are often set forth in one and the same word as when they are designated by the words “cleansing” and “purging” and “taking away,” not only in different places, but also in the same context (as Jn. 1:29, when “the Lamb of God” is said “to take away the sin of the world,” i.e., both by taking away its guilt and punishment by the merit of his blood and by taking away its pollution and taint by the efficacy of the Spirit; and in Rev. 1:5, Christ is said “to wash us from our sins,” both as to justification and as to sanctification; in which sense “the robes of believers” are said “to have been made white in the blood of Christ” [Rev. 7:14] . . . God joined these two benefits in the covenant of grace, since he promises that he will not remember our sins and that he will write his law in our hearts (Jer. 31:33, 34). Nor does the nature of God suffer this to be done otherwise. For since by justification we have a right to life (nor can anyone be admitted to communion with God without sanctification), it is necessary that he whom God justifies is also sanctified by him so as to be made fit for the possession of glory. Nay, he does not take away guilt by justification except to renew his own image in us by sanctification because holiness is the end of the covenant and of all its blessings (Lk. 1:68–75; Eph. 1:4).

Amen! Like I said, “close.”

The very faith by which we are justified demands this. For as it is the instrument of justification by receiving the righteousness of Christ, so it is the root and principle of sanctification, while it purges the heart and works through love (Gal. 5:6). Justification itself (which brings the remission of sins) does not carry with it the permission or license to sin (as the Epicureans hold), but ought to enkindle the desire of piety and the practice of holiness. With God, it is a propitiation that he may be feared (Ps. 130:4); speaks peace to his people that they may not turn again to folly (Ps. 85:8). Thus justification stands related to sanctification as the means to the end. And to this tends the whole economy of grace, which for no other reason has dawned upon us, unless “that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly” (Tit. 2:12).

More great thoughts, which Catholics wholly agree with.

Three opinions concerning the necessity of good works.

II. There are three principal opinions about the necessity of good works. First is that of those who (sinning in defect) deny it; such were formerly the Simonians and the modern Epicureans and Libertines, who make good works arbitrary and indifferent, which we may perform or omit at pleasure. The second is that of those who (sinning in excess) affirm and press the necessity of merit and causality; such were the ancient Pharisees and false apostles, who contended that works are necessary to justification. These are followed by the Romanists and Socinians of our day. The third is that of those who (holding the middle ground between these two extremes) neither simply deny, nor simply assert; yet they recognize a certain necessity for them against the Libertines, but uniformly reject the necessity of merit against the Romanists. This is the opinion of the orthodox.

This is trying to have it both ways. Are works necessary for salvation (alongside grace and faith) or not? Turretin opts for a supposed “middle ground” and a “certain necessity.” He (and Protestants en masse) can’t have it both ways. In order to maintain some sort of necessity for works, they go after merit. But it’s a distinction without a difference. I have collected fifty biblical passages directly tying good works to entrance into heaven and ultimate salvation. They simply can’t be interpreted as involving no merit whatsoever. If they weren’t meritorious whatsoever, then heaven couldn’t possibly be any kind of reward for doing them. Yet it is; so they are meritorious. It’s as simple as that. Here are some of them:

Matthew 7:19-21 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.

Matthew 25:31-36 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [32] 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, [33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. [34] 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; [35] 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, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

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.

Luke 14:13-14 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

John 5:26-29 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

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.

Hebrews 6:7-8 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

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

Revelation 2:5 Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

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.

Moreover, there are several biblical passages that tie salvation directly to sanctification, in a way contrary to the Protestants view of sanctification:

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. [Phillips: “made holy by their faith in me”] [cf. Acts 20:32; Jude 1]

This would appear to contradict a strict notion of sola fide, or faith alone: one of the two “pillars” of the so-called “Reformation”, because it connects sanctification directly to faith; indeed, it comes “by” faith. Here is another passage that connects sanctification with faith (traditionally associated with justification):

Acts 15:8-9 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.

The Greek word for “cleansed” used here is katharizo. It is used many times in the Gospels in reference to the cleansing of lepers (e.g., Mt 10:8; Lk 7:22). We see this dynamic also in Hebrews:

Hebrews 9:12-14 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (cf. 1 John 1:7, 9: same word: katharizo)

Thus, the “eternal redemption” secured by Jesus Christ with “his own blood” leads inexorably to a purified conscience, and a new ability to serve God, just as flesh was purified by the old sacrificial system. Sanctification seems intimately connected to justification, or in any event, redemption. Perhaps the two clearest verses in the New Testament that directly connects sanctification to salvation itself, are these:

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.

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.

The author of Hebrews maintains the same motif:

Hebrews 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Hebrews 10:29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 13:12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

The following five passages also plainly teach the notion of meritorious works:

2 Timothy 2:15, 21-22 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. . . . If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.

Hebrews 10:24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,

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.

2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;

Jude 1:20-21 But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

Augsburg Confession Dialogues: Penance & Satisfaction

Last updated on: May 5, 2024 at 5:11 pm 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!

***

See my introductory article for this series. Excerpts from the Augsburg Confession (“AC”) will be identified and indented, in regular black font. Replies from the Catholic Confutation (“C”) will be in blue, and counter-replies from the Lutheran Apology of the Augsburg Confession (“AAC”) in green. Neither will be indented. My own comments will be in regular black font. My own scriptural citations will be drawn from the RSV.

***

Article XII. Of Repentance.

1 Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2 and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these 3 two parts: One is contrition, that is, 4 terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5 the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6 the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance. . . .

They also are rejected who do not teach that remission of sins comes through faith but command us to merit grace through satisfactions of our own.

To Article XII. In the twelfth article their confession that such as have fallen may find remission of sins at the time when they are converted, and that the Church should give absolution unto such as return to repentance, is commended, since they most justly condemn the Novatians who deny that repentance can be repeated, in opposition both to the prophet who promises grace to the sinner at whatever hour he shall mourn, Ezek. 18:21, and the merciful declaration of Christ our Saviour, replying to St. Peter, that not until seven times, but until seventy times seven in one day, he should forgive his brother sinning against him, Matt. 18:22. But the second part of this article is utterly rejected. For when they ascribe only two parts to repentance, they antagonize the entire Church, which from the time of the apostles has held and believed that there are three parts of repentance—contrition, confession and satisfaction. Thus the ancient doctors, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Gregory, Augustine, taught in attestation of the Holy Scriptures, especially from 2 Kings 12, concerning David, 2 Chron 3:1, concerning Manasseh, Ps. 31, 37, 50, 101, etc. Therefore Pope Leo X of happy memory justly condemned this article of Luther, who taught: “That there are three parts of repentance—viz. confession, contrition, and satisfaction—has no foundation in Scripture or in Holy Christian doctors.” This part of the article, therefore can in no way be admitted; so, too, neither can that which asserts that faith is the second part of repentance, since it is known to all that faith precedes repentance; for unless one believes he will not repent. Neither is that part admitted which makes light of pontifical satisfactions, for it is contrary to the Gospel, contrary to the apostles, contrary to the fathers, contrary to the councils, and contrary to the universal Catholic Church. John the Baptist cries: “Bring forth fruits meet for repentance,” Matt. 3:8. St. Paul teaches: “As ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness, even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness,” Rom 6:19. He likewise preached to the Gentiles that they should repent and be Converted to God, bringing forth fruits meet for repentance, Acts 20:21. So Christ himself also began to teach and preach repentance: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” Matt. 4:17. Afterward he commanded the apostles to pursue this mode of preaching and teaching, Luke 24:47, and St. Peter faithfully obeyed him in his first sermon, Acts 2:38. So Augustine also exhorts that “every one exercise toward himself severity, so that, being judged of himself, he shall not be judged of the Lord,” as St. Paul says. 1 Cor. 11:31. Pope Leo surnamed the Great, said “The Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, gave to those set over the churches the authority to assign to those who confess the doing of penance, and through the door of reconciliation to admit to the communion of the sacraments those who have been cleansed by a salutary satisfaction.” Brose says: “The amount of the penance must be adapted to the trouble of the conscience.” Hence divere penitential canons were appointed in the holy Synod of Nice, in accordance with The diversity of satisfactions, Jovinian the heretic, thought, however, that all sins are equal and accordingly did not admit a diversity of satisfactions. Moreover, satisfactions should not be abolished in the Church, contrary to the express Gospel and the decrees of councils and fathers, but those absolved by the priest ought to perform the penance enjoined, following the declaration of St. Paul: He “gave himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works,” Tit. 2:14. Christ thus made satisfaction for us, that we might be zealous of good works, fulfilling the satisfaction enjoined.

My mentor, Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, in his Modern Catholic Dictionary, defined “Satisfaction” as follows:

The expiation of wrongdoing, especially the penance imposed by a priest before giving sacramental absolution. Essentially the satisfaction consists in the penitent’s willingness to accept the penance imposed and its actual fulfillment. The effect of these two elements is to remove more or less the temporal punishment due to the sins confessed.

They oppose the example of Adam, and also of David, who was punished for his adultery. . . . It has been said before that saints suffer punishments, which are works of God; they suffer contrition or terrors, they also suffer other common afflictions. Thus, for example, some suffer punishments of their own that have been imposed by God. And these punishments pertain in no way to the keys, because the keys neither can impose nor remit them, but God, without the ministry of the keys, imposes and remits them [as He will].

AAC thus allows for the notion of temporal punishment, at least in some cases, but with the proviso that it is only directly from God, and has nothing to do with the ministry of the keys (i.e., clergy / priests). As for temporal punishment itself, that is clearly a biblical doctrine. I would reply that these punishments are often overseen by human agents (in effect, acting as agents of assigned penances and of absolution).

So, for example, when Moses’ sister Miriam “spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married” (Num 12:1, RSV), God punished her with leprosy (12:6-10). That’s a temporal punishment for sin (not damnation). But it was not permanent, because Moses prayed for her to be healed (12:13), and she was after a time. This was literally Moses praying for an indulgence. The text implies that the leprosy wasn’t permanent as a result of the prayer. An indulgence simply mean a remission or relaxation of the temporal penalties for sin.

On several occasions, Moses atoned for his people and brought about an indulgence, so that they were not being punished for one of many sins of theirs (Ex 32:30-32; Num 14:19-23). In the latter case, God pardoned the iniquity of the Hebrews because Moses prayed for them. In Numbers 16:46-48, Moses and Aaron stopped a plague. That was an indulgence too, and the plague was a temporal punishment for sin. Phinehas, a priest, “turned back” God’s “wrath” (Num 25:6-13). The bronze serpent in the wilderness was an indulgence granted by God (Num 21:4-9).

King David wasn’t punished by death due to his sins of murder and adultery (as Saul was for his sins), but he still had a terrible temporal punishment to pay: his son was to die (2 Sam 12:13-14). In other words, part of his punishment was remitted (indulgence) but not all. Note that David was informed of his temporal punishment by the prophet Nathan, whom “the LORD sent . . . to David” (2 Sam 12:1). Nathan explained to David exactly what he did wrong, and pronounced the temporal punishment along with the indulgence: the remission of temporal punishment (2 Sam 12:1-14):

2 Samuel 12:13-14 . . . “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. [14] Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die.”

Thus, Nathan acted like a priest does: he offered partial absolution and indulgence and also proclaimed temporal punishment and, in effect, satisfaction that was to take place. St. Paul acts in the same manner in 1 Corinthians 5:5: “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved” (cf. 5:1-4). Note how this procedure is directly connected to the man’s ultimate salvation. Penance or punishment of this sort exhibits God’s holiness and just nature, whereas forgiveness and indulgences extend His lovingkindness and mercy.

And so, accordingly, St. Paul offered an indulgence or relaxation of the temporal punishment for sin to the same person (see 2 Cor 2:6-11). Paul even uses the word “punishment” to describe the former penitential chastisement, in 2 Corinthians 2:6, and says that it is “enough” and urges the Corinthians to “forgive and comfort him . . . reaffirm your love for him” (the indulgence). This is not simply implicit or indirect proof. It’s explicit New Testament proof for temporal punishment, satisfaction, and indulgences. St. Augustine wrote along these lines:

And it is in the evils that every one suffers, not in the good things that he enjoys, that he has need of patience. The present life, therefore, whereof it is written, Is not the life of man a term of trial upon earth? [Job 7:1] in which we are daily crying to the Lord, Deliver us from evil, [Matthew 6:13] a man is compelled to endure, even when his sins are forgiven him, although it was the first sin that caused his falling into such misery. For the penalty is more protracted than the fault; lest the fault should be accounted small, were the penalty to end with itself. On this account it is also, either for the demonstration of our debt of misery, or for the amendment of our passing life, or for the exercise of the necessary patience, that man is kept through time in the penalty, even when he is no longer held by his sin as liable to everlasting damnation. (Tractate 124 on the Gospel of John [John 21:19-25], 5)

When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance. (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16)

The Council of Trent stated in 1551 (cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1460):

The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of “him who strengthens” us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth “fruits that befit repentance.” These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.

***

Photo credit: Portrait of Philipp Melanchthon (1537), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Catholic-Protestant “dialogue” consisting of the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran, 1530), Catholic replies (then & now), & Philip Melanchthon’s counter-reply.

Augsburg Confession Dialogues: Justification

Last updated on: May 3, 2024 at 8:32 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

***

Article IV. Of Justification.

1 Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

To Article IV. In the fourth article the condemnation of the Pelagians, who thought that man can merit eternal life by his own powers without the grace of God, is accepted as Catholic and in accordance with the ancient councils, for the Holy Scriptures expressly testify to this. John the Baptist says: “A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven,” John 3:27 “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights,” James 1:17. Therefore “our sufficiency is of God,” 2 Cor 3:5. And Christ says: “No man can come to me, Except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him,” John 6:44 And Paul: “What hast thou that thou didst not receive?” I Cor 4:7. For if any one should intend to disapprove of the merits that men acquire by the assistance of divine grace, he would agree with the Manichaeans rather than with the Catholic Church. For it is entirely contrary to holy Scripture to deny that our works are meritorious. For St. Paul says “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day,” 2 Tim. 4:7 & 8. And to the Corinthians he wrote “We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad,” 2 Cor. 5:10. For where there are wages there is merit. The Lord said to Abraham: “Fear not, Abraham, I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward,” Gen 15:l. And Isaiah says: “Behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him,” Isa. 40:10; and, chapter 58:7, 8: “Deal they bread to the hungry, and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the Lord shall go before thee; the glory of the Lord shall gather thee up.” So too the Lord to Cain: “If thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted?” Gen. 4:7. So the parable in the Gospel declares that we have been hired for the Lord’s vineyard, who agrees with us for a penny a day, and says: “Call the laborers and give them their hire,” Matt 20:8. So Paul, knowing the mysteries of God, says: “Every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor,” I Cor. 3:8. 6. Nevertheless, all Catholics confess that our works of themselves have no merit, but that God’s grace makes them worthy of eternal life. Thus St. John says: “They shall walk with me in white; for they are worthy,” Rev. 3:4. And St Paul says to the Colossians, 1:12: “Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.”

Article V. Of the Ministry.

That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ’s sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ’s sake. They condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.

To Article V. In the fifth article the statement that the Holy Ghost is given by the Word and sacraments, as by instruments, is approved. For thus it is written, Acts 10:44: “While Peter yet spoke these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” And John 1:33: “The same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” The mention, however, that they here make of faith is approved so far as not Faith alone, which some incorrectly teach, but faith which worketh by love, is understood, as the apostle teaches aright in Gal 5:3. For in baptism there is an infusion, not of faith alone, but also, at the same time, of hope and love, as Pope Alexander declares in the canon Majores concerning baptism and its effect; which John the Baptist also taught long before, saying, Luke 3:16: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.”

Article VI. Of New Obedience.

Also they teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God’s will, but that we should not rely on those works to merit justification before God. For remission of sins and justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of Christ attests: When ye shall have done all these things, say: We are unprofitable servants. Luke 17:10. The same is also taught by the Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith alone.

To Article VI. Their Confession in the sixth article that faith should bring forth good fruits is acceptable and valid since “faith without works is dead,” James 2:17, and all Scripture invites us to works. For the wise man says: “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might.” Eccles. 9:10. “And the Lord had respect to Abel and to his offering,” Gen. 4:4. He saw that Abraham would “command his Children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord, and to do justice and judgment,” Gen. 18:19. And: “By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing I will bless thee and multiply thy seed.” Gen 22:16. Thus he regarded the fast of the Ninevites, Jonah 3, and the lamentations and tears of King Hezekiah, 4:2; 2 Kings 20. For this cause all the faithful should follow the advice of St. Paul: “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith,” Gal. 6:10. For Christ says: “The night cometh when no man can work.” John 9:4. But in the same article their ascription of justification to faith alone is diametrically opposite the truth of the Gospel by which works are not excluded; “because glory, honor and peace to every man that worketh good,” Rom. 2:10. Why? because David, Ps. 62:12; Christ, Matt. 16:27; and Paul, Rom. 2:6 testify that God will render to every one according to his works. Besides Christ says: “Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father,” Matt. 7:21. 4. Hence however much one may believe, if he work not what is good, he is not a friend of God. “Ye are my friends,” says Christ, “if ye do whatsoever I command you,” John 15:14. On this account their frequent ascription of justification to faith is not admitted since it pertains to grace and love. For St. Paul says: “Though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains and have not charity, I am nothing.” 1 Cor. 13:2. Here St. Paul certifies to the princes and the entire Church that faith alone does not justify. Accordingly he teaches that love is the chief virtue, Col. 3:14: “Above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.” Neither are they supported by the word of Christ: “When ye shall have done all these things, say We are unprofitable servants,” Luke 17:10. For if the doors ought to be called unprofitable, how much more fitting is it to say to those who only believe, When ye shall have believed all things say, We are unprofitable servants! This word of Christ, therefore, does not extol faith without works, but teaches that our works bring no profit to God; that no one can be puffed up by our works; that, when contrasted with the divine reward, our works are of no account and nothing. Thus St. Paul says: “I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us,” Rom. 8:18. For faith and good works are gifts of God, whereby, through God’s mercy, eternal life is given. So, too, the citation at this point from Ambrose is in no way pertinent, since St. Ambrose is here expressed declaring his opinion concerning legal works. For he says: “Without the law,” but, “Without the law of the Sabbath, and of circumcision, and of revenge.” And this he declares the more clearly on Rom. 4, citing St. James concerning the justification of Abraham without legal works before circumcision. For how could Ambrose speak differently in his comments from St. Paul in the text when he says: “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight?” Therefore, finally, he does not exclude faith absolutely, but says: “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

Article XX. Of Good Works.

1 Our teachers are falsely accused of forbidding Good Works. 2 For their published writings on the Ten Commandments, and others of like import, bear witness that they have taught to good purpose concerning all estates and duties of life, as to what estates of life and what works in every calling be pleasing to God. 3 Concerning these things preachers heretofore taught but little, and urged only childish and needless works, as particular holy-days, particular fasts, brotherhoods, pilgrimages, services in honor of saints, the use of rosaries, monasticism, and such like. 4 Since our adversaries have been admonished of these things, they are now unlearning them, and do not preach these unprofitable works as heretofore. 5 Besides, they begin to mention faith, of which there was heretofore marvelous silence. 6 They teach that we are justified not by works only, but they conjoin faith and works, and say that we are justified by faith and works. 7 This doctrine is more tolerable than the former one, and can afford more consolation than their old doctrine.

8 Forasmuch, therefore, as the doctrine concerning faith, which ought to be the chief one in the Church, has lain so long unknown, as all must needs grant that there was the deepest silence in their sermons concerning the righteousness of faith, while only the doctrine of works was treated in the churches, our teachers have instructed the churches concerning faith as follows:—

9 First, that our works cannot reconcile God or merit forgiveness of sins, grace, and justification, but that we obtain this only by faith when we believe that we are received into favor for Christ’s sake, who alone has been set forth the Mediator and Propitiation, 1 Tim. 2:5, in order that the Father may be reconciled through Him. 10 Whoever, therefore, trusts that by works he merits grace, despises the merit and grace of Christ, and seeks a way to God without Christ, by human strength, although Christ has said of Himself: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. John 14:6.

11 This doctrine concerning faith is everywhere treated by Paul, Eph. 2:8: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of your selves; it is the gift of God, not of works, etc.

12 And lest any one should craftily say that a new interpretation of Paul has been devised by us, this entire matter is supported by the testimonies of the Fathers. For 13 Augustine, in many volumes, defends grace and the righteousness of faith, over against the merits of works. 14 And Ambrose, in his De Vocatione Gentium, and elsewhere, teaches to like effect. For in his De Vocatione Gentium he says as follows: Redemption by the blood of Christ would become of little value, neither would the preeminence of man’s works be superseded by the mercy of God, if justification, which is wrought through grace, were due to the merits going before, so as to be, not the free gift of a donor, but the reward due to the laborer.

15 But, although this doctrine is despised by the inexperienced, nevertheless God-fearing and anxious consciences find by experience that it brings the greatest consolation, because consciences cannot be set at rest through any works, but only by faith, when they take the sure ground that for Christ’s sake they have a reconciled God. As Paul teaches Rom. 5:1: 16Being justified by faith, we have peace with God. 17 This whole doctrine is to be referred to that conflict of the terrified conscience, neither can it be understood apart from that conflict. Therefore 18 inexperienced and profane men judge ill concerning this matter, who dream that Christian righteousness is nothing but civil and philosophical righteousness.

19 Heretofore consciences were plagued with the doctrine of works, they did not hear the consolation from the Gospel. 20 Some persons were driven by conscience into the desert, into monasteries hoping there to merit grace by a monastic life. 21 Some also devised other works whereby to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins. 22 Hence there was very great need to treat of, and renew, this doctrine of faith in Christ, to the end that anxious consciences should not be without consolation but that they might know that grace and forgiveness of sins and justification are apprehended by faith in Christ.

23 Men are also admonished that here the term “faith” does not signify merely the knowledge of the history, such as is in the ungodly and in the devil, but signifies a faith which believes, not merely the history, but also the effect of the history—namely, this article: the forgiveness of sins, to wit, that we have grace, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins through Christ.

24 Now he that knows that he has a Father gracious to him through Christ, truly knows God; he knows also that God cares for him, and calls upon God; in a word, he is not 25 without God, as the heathen. For devils and the ungodly are not able to believe this article: the forgiveness of sins. Hence, they hate God as an enemy, call not upon Him, 26 and expect no good from Him. Augustine also admonishes his readers concerning the word “faith,” and teaches that the term “faith” is accepted in the Scriptures not for knowledge such as is in the ungodly but for confidence which consoles and encourages the terrified mind.

27 Furthermore, it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but because it is the will of God. 28 It is only by faith that forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. 29 And because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works. 30 For Ambrose says: Faith is the mother of a good will and right doing. 31 For man’s powers without the Holy Ghost are full of ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works which are good in God’s sight. 32 Besides, they are in the power of the devil who impels men to divers sins, 33 to ungodly opinions, to open crimes. This we may see in the philosophers, who, although they endeavored to live an honest life could not succeed, 34 but were defiled with many open crimes. Such is the feebleness of man when he is without faith and without the Holy Ghost, and governs himself only by human strength.

35 Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. 36 For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the Second Commandment. 37 Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man’s help. 38 And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart. 39 Wherefore Christ said, John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing; 40 and the Church sings:

Lacking Thy divine favor,

There is nothing found in man,

Naught in him is harmless.

To Article XX. In the twentieth article, which does not contain so much the confession of the princes and cities as the defense of the preachers, there is only one thing that pertains to the princes and cities—viz. concerning good works, that they do not merit the remission of sins, which, as it has been rejected and disapproved before, is also rejected and disapproved now. For the passage in Daniel is very familiar: “Redeem thy sins with alms,” Dan. 4:24; and the address of Tobit to his son: “Alms do deliver from death and suffereth not to come into darkness,” Tobit 4:10; and that of Christ: “Give alms of such things as ye have, and behold all things are clean unto you,” Luke 11:41. If works were not meritorious why would the wise man say: “God will render a reward of the labors of his saints”? Wisd. 10:17. Why would St. Peter so earnestly exhort to good works, saying: “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence by good works to make your calling and election sure”? 2 Pet. 1:19. Why would St. Paul have said: “God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love, which ye have showed towards his name”? Heb. 6:10. Nor by this do we reject Christ’s merit but we know that our works are nothing and of no merit unless by virtue of Christ’s passion. We know that Christ is “the way, the truth and the life,”. John 14:6. But Christ, as the Good Shepherd, who “began to do and teach,” Acts 1:1, has given us an example that as he has done we also should do, John 13:15. He also went through the desert by the way of good works, which all Christians ought to pursue, and according to his command bear the cross and follow him. Matt. 10:38; 16:24. He who bears not the cross, neither is nor can be Christ’s disciple. That also is true which John says: “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked,” 1 John 2:6. Moreover, this opinion concerning good works was condemned and rejected more than a thousand years ago in the time of Augustine.

Melanchthon’s answer to this is extremely long (since this deals with one of the two “pillars” of Protestantism and Articles IV-VI and XX), so I can’t reply to all of it. I will, however, make a significant counter-reply. First of all, it should be understood that Philip Melanchthon had introduced a completely novel view of justification (going beyond even Luther’s stance). No one need take my “biased Catholic” word on that. Protestant scholar and expert on the history of the doctrine of justification, Alister McGrath strongly asserts it:

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ‘sanctification’ or ‘regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .

The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. . . .

The Council of Trent . . . reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther’s thought . . . . Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process . . . (Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115)

Protestant apologist Norman Geisler concurs with this view as well.

. . . since the adversaries understand neither what the remission of sins, nor what faith, nor what grace, nor what righteousness is, they sadly corrupt this topic, and obscure the glory and benefits of Christ, . . .

In other words, the unbroken, unanimous soteriological tradition described by Protestants McGrath and Geisler (including the patron saint of Protestantism, St. Augustine), didn’t have the slightest understanding of faith or grace or righteousness or the benefits of Christ. Fortunately, Melanchthon arose in order to explain to all of those poor ignorant misguided folks, the true doctrine of justification, that had never been seen before.

the adversaries select the Law, because human reason naturally understands, in some way, the Law (for it has the same judgment divinely written in the mind); [the natural law agrees with the law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments] and by the Law they seek the remission of sins and justification. Now, the Decalog requires not only outward civil works, which reason can in some way produce, but it also requires other things placed far above reason, namely, truly to fear God, truly to love God, truly to call upon God, truly to be convinced that God hears us, and to expect the aid of God in death and in all afflictions; finally, it requires obedience to God, in death and all afflictions, so that we may not flee from these or refuse them when God imposes them. Here the scholastics, having followed the philosophers, teach only a righteousness of reason, namely, civil works, and fabricate besides that without the Holy Ghost reason can love God above all things.

Johann Eck, in the C (“To Article V”) mentioned the “Holy Ghost” four times, yet Melanchthon has the insolent audacity to claim that Catholics deny this crucial, indispensable role of the Holy Spirit. Equally outrageous is the attribution of this heinous view to the “scholastics”. St. Thomas Aquinas, is — all agree — the ultimate exemplar of that viewpoint, and he wrote the following about natural reason, grace, and the Holy Spirit:

. . . in matters directed to the supernatural end, to which man’s reason moves him, according as it is, in a manner, and imperfectly, informed by the theological virtues, the motion of reason does not suffice, unless it receive in addition the prompting or motion of the Holy Ghost, according to Rm. 8:14,17: “Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are sons of God . . . and if sons, heirs also”: and Ps. 142:10: “Thy good Spirit shall lead me into the right land,” because, to wit, none can receive the inheritance of that land of the Blessed, except he be moved and led thither by the Holy Ghost. Therefore, in order to accomplish this end, it is necessary for man to have the gift of the Holy Ghost. (ST [Summa Theologica] 1-2, q. 68, a. 2c)

By the theological and moral virtues, man is not so perfected in respect of his last end, as not to stand in continual need of being moved by the yet higher promptings of the Holy Ghost . . . (ST 1-2, q. 68, a. 2, ad 2)

. . . man, by his natural endowments, cannot produce meritorious works proportionate to everlasting life; and for this a higher force is needed, viz. the force of grace. And thus without grace man cannot merit everlasting life . . . (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 5c)

I collected eleven additional similar statements in the book that I edited, The Quotable Summa Theologica (Jan. 2013, 200 pages), on pages 90-93, in the section, “Grace Alone (for Justification and Salvation).”

If Melanchthon is implying that the Ten Commandments (and other commandments of God) are irrelevant to salvation itself (and are relegated only to non-salvific sanctification), note what Jesus thought about it:

Matthew 5:16-20 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. [17] “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. [18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. [19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:16-19 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.”

Note how in both sayings, keeping the commandments (i.e., basically good works and expressions of love as opposed to faith alone) was central in the process of salvation and attaining to heaven and eternal life. The rich young ruler expressly asked Jesus how one can attain “eternal life.” The first thing Jesus mentions isn’t faith, but observing the ten commandments. Then He later urged him to sell all he had, in order to be saved: another meritorious work, and not (needless to say) faith. That’s not to say no faith is involved; but I am highlighting how important works also are in the entire equation of justification and salvation.

In this manner they teach that men merit the remission of sins by doing what is in them, i.e., if reason, grieving over sin, elicit an act of love to God, or for God’s sake be active in that which is good.

It’s not just “reason” (as St. Thomas Aquinas clarified in the above citations). It is man cooperating with God’s grace. C expressly stated that in the first sentence of To Article IV: “the condemnation of the Pelagians, who thought that man can merit eternal life by his own powers without the grace of God, is accepted as Catholic and in accordance with the ancient councils, for the Holy Scriptures expressly testify to this.” Likewise, in To Article XX, Eck reaffirmed: “Nor by this do we reject Christ’s merit but we know that our works are nothing and of no merit unless by virtue of Christ’s passion.”

St. Augustine famously observed (and we fully agree) that merit was simply “God crowning His own gifts.” As so often in these theological disputes, the Protestant is quixotically warring against a caricature or “straw man” of Catholic teaching, rather than the actual thing. The tied Pelagian — or sometimes, Semi-Pelagian — charge sent our way is one of the most constant and slanderous. It’s sad. I hate to keep pointing this out, but I can’t deny the obvious.

If we can be justified by reason and the works of reason, wherefore is there need of Christ or regeneration [as Peter declares, 1 Pet. 1:18ff ]? . . . the philosophic righteousness must be sought after. . . . even great theologians at Louvain, Paris, etc., have known nothing of any other godliness or righteousness (although every letter and syllable in Paul teaches otherwise) than the godliness which philosophers teach.

Classic case in point. We notice that Melanchthon doesn’t offer any citation along these lines from an official, magisterial Catholic source. The ultimate reason for that would be because it doesn’t exist. Thus, Melanchthon chooses to fight the straw man rather than produce actual documentation of supposed Catholic espousal or Pelagianism, and ridiculously claims that we supposedly deny the necessity of Christ’s redemptive, salvific work for us and of regeneration. In fact, the Catholic view of baptismal regeneration is in fact stronger and more powerful in terms of grace and gifts received, than the Lutheran view.

We see books extant in which certain sayings of Christ are compared with the sayings of Socrates, Zeno, and others, . . .

Yeah; even St. Paul committed this terrible sin of comparing true aspects of pagan belief to Christianity. If the New Testament is supposedly so opposed to Greek philosophy and indeed all pagan Greek thought whatsoever, then why did Paul — in the midst of evangelizing — cite pagan Greek poets, philosophers, and dramatists (and the Greeks started philosophy and excelled in it): see Acts 17:28 (Aratus: c. 315-240 B.C., Epimenides: 6th c. B.C.), 1 Corinthians 15:33 (Menander: c.342-291 B.C.: “bad company ruins good morals”), and Titus 1:12 (Epimenides, described by Paul as a “prophet”)? In fact, the line that Paul cited on Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17:28), from Aratus, was actually, in context, referring to Zeus (see that full quote in another of my articles).

So Paul used a pagan poet, talking about a false god (Zeus) and “Christianized” the thought, applying it to the true God. That’s Pauline apologetic method. The Church has done this, historically, by “co-opting” pagan holidays and “baptizing” them, thus eventually wiping out the old pagan holidays. The citation from Epimenides (the poem Cretica) involves the same thing; it was originally written about Zeus; Paul (Acts 17:28 again) takes it and applies it to Yahweh, the true God. But Melanchthon wants to argue that comparing some aspects of the sayings of Jesus (Who often employed Socratic method) to Socrates is reprehensible and unChristian? Choose dear readers (when there is contradiction): St. Paul or Philip Melanchthon. “As for me and my house . . .”

Thus they bury Christ, so that men may not avail themselves of Him as a Mediator, and believe that for His sake they freely receive remission of sins and reconciliation, but may dream that by their own fulfilment of the Law they merit the remission of sins, and that by their own fulfilment of the Law they are accounted righteous before God; while, nevertheless, the Law is never satisfied, since reason does nothing except certain civil works, and, in the mean time, neither [in the heart] fears God, nor truly believes that God cares for it. And although they speak of this habit, yet, without the righteousness of faith, neither the love of God can exist in man, nor can it be understood what the love of God is.

If there is no such thing as merit, that can remit sins, St. Peter sure wasn’t informed of it:

1 Peter 4:1, 8-11, 13, 17-18 Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same thought, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, . . . [8] Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins. [9] Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another. [10] As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: [11] whoever speaks, as one who utters oracles of God; whoever renders service, as one who renders it by the strength which God supplies; in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. . . . [13] But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. . . . [17] For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? [18] And “If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?”

Their feigning a distinction between meritum congrui and meritum condigni [due merit and true, complete merit] is only an artifice in order not to appear openly to Pelagianize.

The nefarious 2000-year-old conspiracy to cover up our true works-salvation nature . . .

Melanchthon then goes on and on for many paragraphs, making points that Catholics 100% agree with (particularly concerning initial justification); pretending that we don’t. It’s intellectually disgraceful. I sure hope he does better than this in other sections.

For the Law requires of us our works and our perfection. But the Gospel freely offers, for Christ’s sake, to us, who have been vanquished by sin and death, reconciliation which is received not by works, but by faith alone.

Why, then, did Jesus tell the rich young ruler, who asked him how to attain to eternal life, whether he observed the commandments, and then said that He would have to give away all that he owned to be saved? Why didn’t He simply say, “have faith in Me”? Elsewhere, He did say things like that, too, but this is our point. “Faith alone” excludes all works from the process, which is patently unbiblical. It can’t be harmonized with a passage like this one, or many others, such as fifty passages about works being a central consideration with regard to who enters into heaven.

they teach only the righteousness of the Law, and because they do not teach the righteousness of the Gospel, which proclaims the righteousness of faith in Christ.

More lies, not worth responding to. I simply register my protest against Catholic teachings being systematically misrepresented.

they say nothing concerning faith, . . .

Melanchthon apparently didn’t even read that which he is ostensibly replying to: Eck’s Confutatio. As he noted in the beginning of this portion, he was replying to Eck’s critical comments on Articles IV-VI and XX. Eck mentions “faith” four times in his To Article V and twelve times in To Article VI. That’s sixteen times more than “nothing.” It would be a nice novelty if Melanchthon actually lowered himself — imagine that! — to direct interaction with his theological critic.

The adversaries nowhere can say how the Holy Ghost is given. They imagine that the Sacraments confer the Holy Ghost ex opere operato, without a good emotion in the recipient, as though indeed, the gift of the Holy Ghost were an idle matter.

Martin Luther, in his Large Catechism, wrote:

Therefore every Christian has enough in Baptism to learn and to practise all his life; for he has always enough to do to believe firmly what it promises and brings: victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, the grace of God, the entire Christ, and the Holy Ghost with His gifts. . . . God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; . . . God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost . . . (41, 49-50)

Elsewhere he referred to:

baptism, in which we have been washed by Christ’s own blood and anointed with his Holy Spirit for eternal life, . . . (The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests, Oct. 1533, tr. Martin E. Lehmann; in Luther’s Works, v. 38)

So for Luther — and Lutherans — , the Holy Spirit comes to indwell human beings at baptism. Luther said not a word about emotions. Indeed, most Lutheran baptisms — like Catholic ones — are of infants, who don’t have the slightest idea (let alone “emotion”) about what is going on. The Catholic Church had taught the same for many centuries, based on these Bible passages in particular:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Following this explicit scriptural thought, the Decree for the Armenians, in the Bull Exultate Deo of Pope Eugene IV, promulgated at the Council of Florence (1431-1437) stated:

Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us.

Philip Melanchthon, a highly educated man, surely must have known this, but he exhibits precious little indication of it in his polemics in the AAC. Instead, he makes out that Catholics — DUH! — can’t even figure out how one receives the Holy Spirit. Luther even referred to baptism as being “born again”: precisely as Catholics do:

Concerning this birth, Christ also declares (Jn. 3, 3): “Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” . . . This takes place in baptism when he believes, for faith is this renewing. . . . Note here, the water answers to the washing; to be born again, to regeneration and renewing; and the Spirit, to him whom Paul mentions as the Holy Spirit. (Second Christmas Sermon; Titus 3:4-8, 1522; in Sermons of Martin Luther, The Church Postils; edited and partially translated by John Nicholas Lenker, 8 volumes. Volumes 1-5 were originally published in Minneapolis by Lutherans of All Lands, 1904-1906. Volumes 6-8 were originally published in Minneapolis by The Luther Press, 1908-1909; vol. 6)

[I]n this washing [previously cited Titus 3:5] man is born again and made new. As Christ also says, in John iii, “Except ye be born again of water and the Spirit of grace, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” [John 3:5] For just as a child is drawn out of its mother’s womb and born, and through this fleshly birth is a sinful man and a child of wrath, [Eph. 2:3] so man is drawn out of baptism and spiritually born, and through this spiritual birth is a child of grace and a justified man. (Treatise on Baptism, Nov. 1519; tr. C. M. Jacobs)

Note that in the last statement, Luther even says that one result of baptism is being “justified.” Even Melanchthon wrote in AAC (72): ” ‘to be justified’ means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, . . .”

Therefore, by faith alone we obtain remission of sins, when we comfort our hearts with confidence in the mercy promised for . . .

Even Lutherans don’t believe this without exception, since they believe in baptismal regeneration, which remits sins. In adults, the decision to get baptized is a work, being an act of obedience. It’s more than simply faith or mental assent. It’s a sacrament (as Lutherans agree).

we receive remission of sins for Christ’s sake, only through faith.

Why is it, then, that Jesus told His disciples (obviously the prototypes of future clergy): “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven” (Jn 20:23)? Why does it take one man to forgive another person’s sin, as God’s representative, if supposedly all that is needed to do that is faith? Likewise, why does St. Paul talk in the following terms?: “Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive” (2 Cor 2:10). Why is he forgiving folks’ sins that have nothing directly to do with any offense to him, if indeed all remission of sins come through a simple act of faith: man to God?

we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone,

We do not. We receive remission of sins also through repentance, penance, contrition, and priestly absolution, and the Holy Spirit through baptism (and in greater measure at confirmation), which are acts that we do as human beings, and in infant baptism, without our own faith or even understanding.

My patience with Melanchthon’s cynical, sloppy method (in terms of this topic) is exhausted. I’ve written scores of times about the false and unbiblical doctrine of “faith alone” and the infused nature of justification. It’s not that I have no responses on this subject. Quite the contrary! See the first section of my Salvation, Justification, & “Faith Alone” web page. I also did a book-length dialogue on justification last year with Brazilian Calvinist Francisco Tourinho: Justification: A Catholic Perspective (Aug. 2023).

***

Photo credit: Diet of Augsburg, by Christian Beyer (see German source) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Catholic-Protestant “dialogue” consisting of the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran, 1530), Catholic replies (then & now), & Philip Melanchthon’s counter-reply.

Vs. James Swan #2 Re Luther’s Mariology, Pt. 1

Last updated on: April 30, 2024 at 9:53 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!

***

This is the original reply and back-and-forth exchange (see the archived version on my original website: dated 6-28-03, and the abridged version, revised on 7-19-20). It was a rebuttal of Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist James Swan’s paper, Luther’s Theology of Mary: A Response to Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong (June 2003), which was in response to my paper, Martin Luther’s Mariology: Reply to James Swan: . . . Particularly the Immaculate Conception / Has Present-Day Protestantism Maintained the Classical “Reformational” Heritage of Mariology? (4-26-03; rev. 4-6-23), which in turn was a reply to his 2003 article, “Martin Luther’s Theology of Mary.” Swan’s words will be in blue.

*****

See Part 2

*****

This paper is far too lengthy for me to respond to absolutely every point (it has 201 footnotes, many themselves quite long), and besides, I do not disagree with many of the statements and contentions in the paper , hence there is no particular reason to reply to portions with which I already concur. Thus, I will reply only to sections where I feel that my thought or some statement or other was misrepresented or misunderstood by Mr. Swan (which turned out to be quite numerous), and to areas where we would actually disagree, and/or where I feel I have some further relevant information or research to present. Readers can assume that I either agree with anything in Mr. Swan’s paper that I haven’t responded to below, or that I have no particular objection, or think it not worth spending time arguing about, or researching further.*Part of the dispute between us (as far as I can tell) has to do with what Mr. Swan thinks I am claiming with regard to Luther’s Mariology (he exaggerates my claims and tries to make “rhetorical hay” out of some of them — seemingly for apologetic and polemical purposes). Apart from his disturbingly frequent inadvertently false portrayals of my own views, I commend Mr. Swan for an educational and interesting piece of research. As a student of Church history (I love history almost as much as theology — especially the history of Christian doctrine), I always appreciate such in-depth work, particularly where Martin Luther is concerned, as I find him a fascinating figure on many levels.*Words of mine from my previous paper or elsewhere will be indented, in order to distinguish them from present replies. If I cite Mr. Swan’s words from sources other than his latest paper above, they will also be indented and still in blue. That way, I need not always mention that it is an earlier comment of his. The indentations will serve as a “code.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Preliminaries

2. “Hostility, “Ad Hominem,” & the Notorious “BJ Bear”

3. My Supposed “Ever-Changing” Paper, “Extremities,” and “Complexities”

4. Luther’s Mariological Development and Qualifiers in My Viewpoint

5. Cardboard Caricatures of Medieval Marian Piety / St. Alphonsus de Liguori as a “Test Case” of Marian Excess

6. The Immaculate Conception and the Gospel According to James

1. Preliminaries

This paper is a response to the multiple versions of Dave Armstrong’s “Counter Reply: Martin Luther’s Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception).”

The first version lasted only two days, and was modified after I discovered I had made a significant mistake, so the earlier versions are now irrelevant. My present Internet upload of the above paper is my final version and the one I now stand by. I shall comment more on this below, as Mr. Swan comments on now-obsolete statements of mine.

Currently, I have three different versions of Mr. Armstrong’s response to my paper, varying in layout and content.

The one above is the only relevant one.

Anyone familiar with Internet theological bulletin boards have at some point come across Roman Catholic criticism of Martin Luther. Fairly common topics include: . . . his alleged desire to be a Protestant pope, . . .

I have good reason to believe that Mr. Swan may be referring to my paper: Martin Luther the “Super-Pope” (?) and de facto Infallibility (?): With Extensive Documentation From Luther’s Own Words [11-13-02; rev. 5-15-03 and 6-18-06]. This argument of mine is often misunderstood by Protestants, and the above characterization is misleading in its simplicity and how it will likely be interpreted. I refer readers to my paper above, to better understand how I approach the issue of Luther’s self-anointed authority over against the papal authority which is always a large target of Protestant polemics. It is an instance of “turning the tables.” But one must try to make a valiant effort to take off their “Protestant glasses” when reading the paper, lest it be misunderstood in both content and intent (as it often is in fact).

Interestingly though, when it comes to the topic of Mary, Roman Catholic sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. This drastic shift is puzzling; particularly since Luther’s abandoning of the intercession of the saints and his doctrine of justification significantly changes his Marian approach.

I don’t see why it should be “puzzling” at all. Luther’s Mariology is much closer to the Mariology of Catholicism than that of Protestantism, even of his own branch of it: Lutheranism. This is what a Catholic finds interesting and of note. It’s one of those fascinating tidbits of history that makes the study of history so enjoyable. Furthermore, it follows that if “going back to one’s roots” and being a so-called “Reformation Protestant” are worthwhile endeavors (it is for many thoughtful, historically-conscious Protestants today), then I think it is significant that Protestantism has largely rejected the Mariology of Luther and other early Protestants (the shift with regard to the perpetual virginity of Mary is a particularly striking evolution of doctrine within Protestantism — in most cases today a 180-degree reversal).

As for Luther’s stance on intercession of the saints, I have already long since acknowledged that this is a difference from the Catholic view, but (in my opinion) not enough of a difference to make his Mariology closer in content to current Protestant Mariology than to Catholic Mariology.

My paper was not written for the intention of inviting Mr. Armstrong to debate. Rather, it was posted . . . for the broader Protestant Internet community. I understand why Mr. Armstrong would feel the need to respond, since I referenced his web page as an example of popular Roman Catholic approaches to Luther’s Mariology.

I was interested in the subject matter.

2. “Hostility, “Ad Hominem,” & the Notorious “BJ Bear”
*C. Hostility and Ad Hominem
*

In his initial response to my paper, Mr. Armstrong confused me with another person whom he dialogued with a few months ago. His response was quite offensive, regardless of whom he was critiquing.

This is highly interesting, in that Mr. Swan regards a simple case of mistaken identity as a breach of ethics or methodological flaw serious enough to devote a section of his paper to it and to go on and on as if this proves some terrible deficiency in my character or intellectual abilities. I also find it fascinating that he finds my response offensive, no matter who it was critiquing. This is a clear instance where context means everything. Unless one knows the original context, then one cannot properly judge the prima facie harshness of my words. Mr. Swan provided none, and so this becomes a classic exercise of giving only half the story, which amounts to a half-truth, which is not much better than a lie.

In his catalogue of my colorful “hostile” remarks, he mixes in some which were directed towards the other person whom I initially thought was him, with others directed toward the arguments of his first paper. The first category is no longer relevant; many of the comments of the second category were edited out when I myself considered them too harsh and uncharitable. But I guess this is not good enough for Mr. Swan. Rather than commend me for editing out overly-harsh remarks, he takes the opportunity to try to “prove” (or so it would seem) that I am a loose cannon who raves uncontrollably (in the vein of Luther himself). Somehow he seems to think that this proves something scandalous and unsavory in my case, but not in the case of Martin Luther, who say far worse things about far more people, and with far less warrant and justification.

The case of mistaken identity is easily explained. The person on whose website Mr. Swan’s first paper appeared mentioned in his announcement ran across Mr. Swan on a discussion board where he was engaging in discussion with me, and allegedly revealing my “extremely poor research methods.” I assumed that this was another person, who goes by the nickname “BJ Bear” (I still don’t know this person’s real name), because he was the one who accused me of incompetence in matters of citation and documentation, in a lengthy dialogue about some of Luther’s statements about his own authority. Mr. Swan (as I recall) was also interjecting comments “on the sidelines” during that debate, but was not the main participant, by any means.

The confusion was strictly due to the annoying habit of many people on bulletin boards, of using nicknames only and not their real names. So James Swan was known to me only as “TertiumQuid” until I discovered his paper on Tim’s website. I thought he was “BJ Bear” at first, but within a day or so he informed me that he was not. I promptly apologized and modified my paper accordingly. Yet Mr. Swan continues to talk about the earlier versions. The reader can decide for himself what his purpose is in doing this. I find it rather petty and unnecessary.

As for the other person, “BJ Bear,” whom I described (in my first version of the paper) as “critical and overbearing,” and one who put forth much “tedious insulting material” — this is all absolutely true. I think any fair-minded person who read my exchange with him on Luther would agree that his attitude left much to be desired. I was trying to discuss the import and meaning of a statement of Luther’s, and instead, “BJ” turned the discussion into one long examination consisting of (as I described it) “snide insinuations of my alleged profound incompetence and dishonesty.” Unfortunately, I recently edited out his comments from the paper. I did not keep a back-up copy and it was too old to retrieve from the original bulletin board exchange (probably for the better, as the exchange was excruciatingly boring and tedious — precisely why I edited it down). Mr. Swan, however, did cite a few of the comments in a public post. They give a good and representative flavor of the overall tone and tenor of “BJ Bear’s” remarks:

Propaganda isn’t as effective when specific references are given. The severe editing of the text in the original post and the following commentary betrays an incredible lack of understanding and/or deliberate bias. Using your style of citation and interpretation an atheist can easily prove that the Bible teaches there never was a god. Using your method it would go like this, “In the beginning … There is no god … You are gods.”I leave you with a definition and recommended reading.

Context: the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.

How To Read A Book, by Mortimer J. Adler. Glad to be of help in your acquisition of knowledge. I’m looking forward to reading an effective Roman Catholic apologetic argument.

The entire discussion was about a quote in one of my papers that was from Luther. “BJ” complained that it deleted large portions of material that he found in the 55-volume version of the words under consideration in Luther’s Works in English. He argued / insinuated that because I didn’t include ellipses [i.e., . . . ], and because there were several pages of material in-between, that I was therefore incompetent and had not the slightest clue of how to document information.

Well, it turned out that the mistake was not mine at all, but, in fact, that of Will Durant, the noted historian and author of the well-known multi-volume Story of Civilization (from which I got my quote). As far as I can tell (though it is speculative), it turned on the fact that he was citing a German version of Luther’s writings, which differed from the English version of that particular excerpt. I take it as uncontroversial that I, as a non-academic lay apologist, can cite a professional historian (Mr. Swan cites dozens of them in his latest paper, in the same fashion) and trust that he has checked out the primary sources, and so forth. Since Durant made this egregious mistake that “BJ Bear” made so much of, this only goes to show that either the German version of Luther’s words was different (in which case it wouldn’t be a “mistake” at all, but a case of differing versions) or that professional historians make mistakes in citation (which I already knew, as they are human beings like the rest of us).

But did this error (or differing translation) prove (following my opponent’s convoluted reasoning) that Will Durant suffered from “an incredible lack of understanding and/or deliberate bias”? I think not. After I pointed these inconvenient facts out, “BJ Bear” understandably went rather silent (and, strangely, I have never heard from him since). His task was to embarrass me and show me up as an incompetent boob, not to do that to the secularist historian Will Durant (who wasn’t exactly an “RC apologist”)! The amusement of such folly and comic turn of events more than made up for the offensiveness of the false charge. Now, thanks to Mr. Swan’s insistence on bringing up the “embarrassing” incident again, readers can make up their own mind as to who is failing to attain a certain level of “scholarly respectability” and refraining from “hostility and ad hominem.”

He also seems to insinuate that since I am merely a “seminary student” I couldn’t possibly have an accurate opinion on Luther.

I did no such thing. One must read words in context, and once again Mr. Swan neglects it and so gives a most misleading impression. Mr. Swan is simply being overly-sensitive. Here is the context of the remark he refers to (emphasis added):

In light of the context of his entire paper, it is clear that Mr. Swan is skeptical of such a description of early Protestant views; he does not accept it. He neglects to inform the reader, however, that Pelikan himself (a far more authoritative voice on such matters than Mr. Swan, a seminary student) is not nearly so skeptical. I shall cite his statements from the same book. Mr. Pelikan noted the vigorous opposition of early Protestants to idolatry and excesses of the communion of saints — as I did, in my article above — (much of which was in full agreement with Catholic teaching, rightly-understood). But Pelikan maintains that that is not the entire picture of
early Protestant Mariology:

. . . it would be a mistake, and one which many interpretations of the Reformation both friendly and hostile have all too easily fallen, to emphasize these negative and polemical aspects of its Mariology at the expense of the positive place the Protestant Reformers assigned to her in their theology. (24) They repeated . . . the central content of the orthodox confession of the first five centuries of Christian history. (25) (Pelikan, ibid. [Mary Through The Ages, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996], 157)

Mr. Swan needs to ponder the essential, profound logical difference between the following two propositions:

1) A well-known and well-respected Church historian carries more authority when he gives his opinion on early Protestant Mariology, than a seminary student does.2) A seminary student couldn’t possibly have an accurate opinion on Luther, or his Mariology, or early Protestant Mariology.

I (in effect) asserted the first proposition, as seen by the context of the “offensive” (?) remark, above. I did not assert the second at all, nor would I ever state it, and in fact, if I had stated such a silly, foolish thing, it would immediately backfire on me, since I have no formal theological education at all, and thus if I believed this I would have to stop writing about Luther myself. Furthermore, proposition one above is not only not insulting, it is (or should be) completely non-insulting and is, I think, self-evidently true. Yet Mr. Swan was somehow offended by it (??).

His final comment was perhaps the most telling of his attitude toward my abilities:

As the inquirer gets deeper and deeper into the subject, many other more advanced treatments (including dialogues with educated, theologically-literate Protestants) can be found in my papers and links…

This is an even more groundless charge and needless offense than the remark explained above. Mr. Swan completely misunderstands my statement and makes an unwarranted assumption (viz., that my words in the parentheses were somehow intended to be a subtle, belittling swipe at him, as if I was contrasting such a person to him). Nothing could be further from the truth. This came after a list of recommended papers of mine about Mary — for readers who wanted to delve more deeply into the subject. All I was saying was that I have on my website many dialogues with educated Protestants (as opposed to uneducated ones). I seek out the best Protestant opponents I can find. That’s all this meant. Period. Mr. Swan assumes rather a lot about my internal attitudes. He assumes falsely. And I sure hope this sort of “analysis” from him will cease if we dialogue in the future.

Thus we see that Mr. Swan’s examples of my “hostility and ad hominem” include:

1) Some true remarks about another person (at first incorrectly directed towards Mr. Swan, for reasons explained) who falsely accused me of gross apologetic incompetence.
2) Remarks that I removed within two days, after self-reflection.
3) An example which was based (in proper context) on an utterly illogical conclusion that doesn’t follow at all from the words I wrote.
4) An example of an utterly mistaken and overly-sensitive interpretation by Mr. Swan.

Whatever else “personally offensive” that remains on my paper should be discussed in context, as well. Simply creating a laundry list of colorful critical remarks with absolute neglect of context will not do, and amounts to a wholesale distortion of my thought-processes, and an unseemly cynicism.

Nor will the reader find any slander against Mr. Armstrong in my original paper.

This is true. Nor have I slandered Mr. Swan. I am quite critical of some of his arguments and comments. But that is not slander. It is merely disagreement (even if expressed in colorful terminology — which I have been known to do at times).

This situation was ‘somewhat’ rectified when I pointed out Armstrong’s error of misidentification. When he realized he was firing at the wrong target, Mr. Armstrong edited his response and toned down some of his hostile language. Some of the above comments are still contained in later versions of his paper.

They need to be read in context and discussed individually. I contend that no slander is present once my words are accurately interpreted.

3. My Supposed “Ever-Changing” Paper, “Extremities,” and “Complexities”
*Perhaps with the ever-changing nature of Mr. Armstrong’s web page response, we can expect to see further editing.
*

I find this very amusing. I uploaded the paper on April 24th. Upon learning that Mr. Swan was not “BJ Bear” I edited it two days later, also adding some new material and re-organizing it. It’s called “editing.” It’s called “refining.” A single change within two days somehow gets described as “ever-changing”?

Earlier versions of Mr. Armstrong’s response followed no apparent order. His response was filled with a fair amount of tangential material, sending the reader in a multitude of directions (directions worthy of study, yet tangential to my paper).

Again: who cares about earlier versions? Why even mention it now? This is precisely why I better-organized it, two days later. My paper is not simply a response to Mr. Swan’s and nothing else. As is my usual custom, I often use dialogical opportunities as “springboards” to explore wider subject matter (what interests me and what I feel will be helpful to my website readers): in this case the Mariology of the early Protestants, generally-speaking. Thus, not everything in my paper is to be regarded as a “counter-response.” This miscomprehension comes up often in Mr. Swan’s paper.

It is my contention that Mr. Armstrong’s material on Luther’s theology of Mary reflects an extreme position: the great Reformer was primarily in agreement with Rome in both doctrine and practice, with only minor conflict.

I would say that my view and approach to this topic is more so the belief that Luther’s Mariology is closer in content and spirit to Catholicism than to present-day Lutheranism (and far closer, compared to present-day Protestantism-in-general). In other words, I am examining its relative position between the two camps, not simply the Catholic camp. I fail to see how this position is extreme, in light of statements in my first paper such as the following from Protestants:

[T]he Churches that look back to the Reformers have on the whole been less affirmative about Mary than most of the Reformers themselves. (Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, 123 [David Wright])

Another Lutheran scholar, Basilea Schlink, believes that:

[T]he majority of us have drifted away from the proper attitude towards her, which Martin Luther had indicated to us on the basis of Holy Scripture … (Mary, the Mother of Jesus, London: Marshall Pickering, 1986, 114-115)

Elliot Miller, of the evangelical Christian Research Institute (founded by the eminent cult researcher, the late Dr. Walter Martin), confesses:

[I]t is regrettably true that some Protestants—no doubt in reaction to Catholic excesses—have almost forgotten Mary . . . (“The Mary of Roman Catholicism,” Christian Research Journal, Summer 1990: 9-15; Fall 1990: 27-33; quote from p. 33)

It seems to me that I am not asserting much more than these Protestants. Is Mr. Swan prepared to call their view “extreme” too? I believe my contention here is rather obvious. Luther believed in some form of the Immaculate Conception. He believed in Mary’s Assumption. He believed in her perpetual virginity. He freely called her “Mother of God” (Theotokos). He spoke of honoring her, and preached eighty Marian sermons. Most Protestants today deny the first three tenets outright, are reluctant to say “Mother of God” (usually due to Nestorian tendencies and a misunderstanding of what the term means, and how it historically developed), “honor” Mary (if at all), only at Christmastime or during sentimental moments while singing Silent Night, and preach and talk about her hardly at all (I don’t recall ever hearing a Marian sermon in my 13 years as an evangelical Christian). Yet Mr. Swan would have us believe that my view is “extreme” in simply asserting that Luther’s views are closer to Catholicism than Protestantism? It’s a strange world . . .

Studying Luther is no easy task, and the studies of Luther throughout the past 500 years can sometimes be both help and hindrance.

I wholeheartedly concur. I don’t deny that Luther’s thought developed (Mr. Swan implies that I do deny that). But it is also true that he was contradictory (even beyond his characteristic rhetorical contrasts and exaggerations) and that his later years were less coherent (at least in expression) than his earlier years. I think all these things are true. This is Luther. He was complex and fascinating and often (from a Catholic dogmatic perspective) exasperatingly and stubbornly dead-wrong. Mr. Swan himself wrote on a Protestant bulletin board, on 4-24-03:

I am acutely aware of how difficult it is to present an accurate picture of Luther. Hence, I welcome any of you that take historical studies seriously to correct me where I miss the mark . . .   Where Luther had warts, there is no need to cover them up. Where Luther did not have warts, shame on anyone who puts them there.Areopagus (http://pub84.ezboard.com/fntrmindiscussionboardfrm9.showMessage?topicID=155.topic)

Why is he being so hard on me, then, in describing my thesis on a complex question about a complex person as “extreme”? His descriptions are what are “extreme” here, not my views. I’m sure Mr. Swan knows a lot more about the details of Luther’s thought and life than I do. My interest in Luther is only one of dozens of theological interests that I have and in which I engage in my work as an apologist. Mr. Swan can specialize. I don’t have that luxury in my line of work. Yet I don’t think this means I have offered no support for my opinions about the “contradictory” Luther. I cited Roland Bainton (author of probably the most well-known biography of Luther: Here I Stand), who showed that Luther developed, but was also “an irascible old man, petulant, peevish, unrestrained, and at times positively coarse.”

Likewise, in my paper about Luther’s anti-Catholicism, [Dave (4-29-24) since removed, and I have changed my opinion somewhat since then] I cited a scholar, Mark U. Edwards, Jr. (Protestant, I believe), and his book, Luther’s Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531-1546 (Ithaca, New York and London: Cornell University Press, 1983). Writing about Luther’s work, Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil (March 1545), Edwards states:

The last major polemic of Luther’s life . . . was intended to inform Protestants of the true horror of the papal antichrist and to discredit the council convened at Trent . . . Without question it is the most intentionally violent and vulgar writing to come from Luther’s pen. (p. 163)

Luther even commissioned Lucas Cranach to do a series of eight cartoons to give graphic expression to his evaluation of the papacy. He provided instructions for what the cartoons were to show and penned satirical verses to accompany them. The violence and vulgarity of the treatise carried over to the cartoons . . . And he continued:

Next one should take the pope, cardinals, and whatever servants there are of his idolatry and papal holiness, and rip out their tongues at the roots (as blasphemers of God) and nail them on the gallows. . . Next, let them hold a council or whatever they want on the gallows or in hell.

One of the cartoons depicts the pope and cardinals, and their tongues, being treated in just this brutal fashion . . . Another example, this one of the vulgarity with which Luther felt the papacy should be treated, came in his discussion of the keys . . . ‘In addition, we may in good conscience,’ he wrote, ‘take his coat-of-arms, which features the keys, and his crown to the privy and use them to relieve our needs [and] afterwards throw them into the fire (it would be better if it were the pope himself).’ The associated cartoon shows a peasant defecating into the papal tiara while two other peasants await their turn . . . A third cartoon shows the Pope and three cardinals being expelled from the anus of a female devil while three furies are nursing and caring for three infant popes. The cartoon was titled ‘origin of the pope’ and was a graphic echo of Luther’s assertion in his treatise that the pope had been born from the devil’s behind . . . (pp. 189, 199)

Roland Bainton describes this “art” (my quotation marks) as “outrageously vulgar . . . in all of this he was utterly unrestrained” (Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, New York: Mentor, 1950, 298).

4. Luther’s Mariological Development and Qualifiers in My Viewpoint
*Mr. Armstrong attempts to use O’Meara and Lortz to deny this growth and development.
*
My paper sees Luther as a gifted thinker whose theology grew and developed, rather than a man whose later years were plagued by incoherence and ravings.

I deny the first comment and agree with the first clause of the second comment. I think Luther’s “incoherence and ravings” spanned his entire lifetime. The two are not mutually exclusive. As a serious theologian, his thought developed and expanded. The other aspect (second clause above) had mainly to do with his portrayal of Catholicism and Catholics. His caricatures of Catholic doctrine and practices became more outrageous and vulgar as he grew older. But that is a different thing from his own theology. So I say that both aspects are true. I need not deny either. It’s a false dichotomy.

. . . I pointed out that “Luther did indeed have a Mariology.” Mr. Armstrong though seems to think I am denying that Luther (and the Reformers) had a Mariology.

No; I denied Mr. Swan’s assertion that Luther’s Mariology was closer to Protestantism than to Catholicism. That was my underlying thesis, and the one which Mr. Swan so strongly (but curiously and strangely) disavows. It is not the same statement as “denying that Luther . . . had a Mariology.” It’s a matter of degree rather than “existence vs. nonexistence.” Mr. Swan apparently thinks I am special pleading and distorting the historical picture for Catholic polemical reasons. I need not distort anything. I think history clearly tells us (above and beyond scholarly disagreements on various details) that Luther and also the other early Protestant leaders were far more interested in and devoted to Mary than present-day Protestants. Mr. Swan can “work around the edges” of this truth but it won’t change the fact.

This is a major charge against Mr. Armstrong’s response: throughout his paper he documents that Luther had a Mariology (as well as other early Reformers), but then fails to explore the content of that Mariology by citing and exploring the primary source writings of Luther. Mr. Armstrong infrequently cites Luther in his response, . . .

My main interest was in his view of the Immaculate Conception. Thus the subtitle: “Particularly the Immaculate Conception.” I cited plenty of his own writings in that regard.

. . . and rarely interacts with the quotes of Luther I used. One would think he would have scoured contexts in order to prove my interpretation of Luther faulty. Such argumentation is missing from the bulk of his response.

Of course it is, because I agreed with most of these Luther quotes from Mr. Swan. How could I not? These were Luther’s own words about his Mariology. That was not an area of disagreement. The same thing will apply to much of his present paper, when we get into Luther’s words and scholarly appraisals of his Mariology. That Luther’s Mariology was Christocentric and “non-dogmatic” and lacking the intercessory aspect is utterly uncontroversial. But Mr. Swan seems to think it is controversial to contend that Luther’s Mariology is more akin to Catholicism than to present-day Protestantism. And that is why all the quotes from Protestants suggesting a view like mine were relevant to my purpose and argument (if not his), despite Mr. Swan’s protests of their irrelevance. But Mr. Swan (though continuing to describe my view of the matter as “extreme”) has softened his position a little bit in his second paper, stating:

There are similarities because both Rome and Luther have a Mariology, employ similar terms, and are aware of Christological teaching about Mary.

It is the content and progress though of Luther’s Mariology that is the focal point of my paper.

I dealt with that somewhat (mostly within scholarly quotations, and mostly about the Immaculate Conception). Most of this will be uncontroversial, and I will have no comment because I accept it just as Mr. Swan does. His paper, in many respects, complements rather than contradicts my first paper and the present one.

Mr. Armstrong thinks that I incorrectly summarized his view of Luther’s Mariology when I said he drew a picture of Luther espousing a doctrine of Mary that reflects Roman Catholic theology, with little or no conflict with Luther’s Reformation ideals.

I was responding by taking into consideration the context of how you introduced (or prefaced) your remarks, which was as follows:

. . . A quick search for information about Martin Luther on the World Wide Web reveals that polemics against Luther remain frequent and high-pitched, as different groups create the villain they find in his writings. The basic elements of Luther’s thought are generally missing, distorting the man, his theology, . . . Others present a more “Catholic” Luther . . . Such is the case with Luther’s theology of Mary.

Then the example of a statement from my website is offered. In context, the insinuation (at least as I interpreted it) is that I am offering a skewed, distorted picture and special pleading; making Luther out to be a “Catholic” in this regard, at the expense of his distinctively Protestant emphases. This is false. I simply present Luther as he was, as far as I can ascertain with the help of the historians. And, as I said, I offered several qualifications (about eight, as it were) where I contrasted Luther with the Catholic view. That doesn’t sound “extreme” or like some sort of pre-planned “knee-jerk” reaction to me. Mr. Swan then denied that the Mariological situation in Protestantism had changed much:

By reading selected quotes [of] Luther, it does indeed appear that Protestantism has deviated from his veneration of Mary.

He though would rather be thought to hold, “several nuanced [sic] qualifying remarks, contrasting Luther’s Marian views with those of the Catholic Church.” The only qualifier he actually mentions is Luther’s rejection of the intercession and invocation of the saints.

This is simply untrue. In the very same context, following my words above, I wrote:

. . . Immaculate Conception . . . Concerning this question there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of conception and the soul, and whether or not Luther later changed his mind . . . . . . In later life (he died in 1546), Luther did not believe that this doctrine should be imposed on all believers, since he felt that the Bible didn’t explicitly and formally teach it.. . . he was highly critical of what he felt were excesses in the celebration of this Feast [of the Assumption].

Luther did strongly condemn any devotional practices which implied that Mary was in any way equal to our Lord or that she took anything away from His sole sufficiency as our Savior. This is, and always has been, the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

His attitude towards the use of the “Hail Mary” prayer (the first portion of the Rosary) is illustrative. In certain polemical utterances he appears to condemn its recitation altogether, but he is only forbidding a use of Marian devotions apart from heartfelt faith, . . .

Furthermore, in my citations of scholars concerning the Immaculate Conception, many disagreements are explored. So this is six or seven more qualifiers and contrasts. It’s another frustrating instance of Mr. Swan not reading or understanding my words very well at all. And this was from my paper, Martin Luther’s Devotion to Mary [see a later revised version with one clarification], which was cited by Mr. Swan in his first paper, and which was written in 1994! I hope this doesn’t become a pattern: Mr. Swan reads something of mine about Mary; he goes on (despite reading it) to make a false claim about my understanding of Luther’s Mariology. I quote portions of the same material again; he continues to make a false charge; I cite it a second time (now) . . . one wonders if three times reading it will cause him to stop misunderstanding my viewpoint? Why should I have to cite again in this paper what I already cited in the last one?

Mr. Armstrong’s approach to Luther is an excellent example of the “drastic shift” I noted above. When Luther makes positive comments in regard to Mary, Luther is seen as a positive theological beacon that all Protestants should flock towards.

Here we go with the melodramatic words again. First, we had “extreme,” now “drastic.” My views are neither, as far as I am concerned. First of all, the argument at a deeper level is a comment on the internal dynamics of Protestantism, with regard to the relationship of current Protestants to their origins (perhaps this aspect was misunderstood — my arguments against Protestantism often are, because Protestants are so completely unacquainted with such vigorous critiques and Catholic modes of thinking and argumentation are very foreign to them):

1) Luther founded Protestantism.
2) Many Protestants today are seeking to revisit, incorporate, or re-establish the “Reformation heritage.”
3) Part of that heritage is Luther’s Mariology, which is far more robust than present Protestant Mariology.
4) Protestants ought to ponder why this is, and consider that it may suggest that there is a bit more to Catholic distinctives than meets the eye, seeing that Luther’s principle was sola Scriptura, not adherence to all dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Secondly, I don’t see why it is somehow a questionable notion that Catholics would commend Luther when his views are similar or identical to theirs. After all, Protestants do this all the time in their polemics, the other way around. They will quote some Catholic or a Church Father whom they think sounds like a Protestant (St. Augustine is routinely utilized in this way). They will extoll him to the heavens. But when the same person speaks in some shockingly Catholic way (say, about purgatory or allegiance to the pope), then he is (rhetorically) cast off like a pair of dirty socks. Protestant histories of the early Church are often typified by this love-hate relationship with early Christians.

Philip Schaff, in particular, comes to mind. He will often praise the “Protestant” elements of some Father and then immediately rail against the “Catholic” stuff that was widespread at the time — to his obvious dismay and bewilderment. Schaff is quite opinionated, but he sticks to facts and tells it like it was, which is why I like him so much. When Luther is right, the Catholic will commend him! That this is an amazing, “drastic” phenomenon is “extremely” curious to me. It’s just common sense. Truth is truth.

After spending time reading Armstrong’s articles about Luther, why should anyone believe Luther about anything?

Because the standard of truth is a separate entity from Luther. If he is right about something, then he is right, regardless of how wrong he is on many other points. This is elementary.

Why is it that when Luther speaks about Mary, anybody should listen?

Protestants should listen, because he is the founder of their system and highly respected by them. The more relevant question, in my mind, would be, “why should Protestants ignore Luther when he teaches about Mary, and why should they paternalistically dismiss his Mariology as, e.g., an unfortunate ‘holdover’ from the Catholicism that he only recently emerged out of?”

It is hard to take Mr. Armstrong’s views on Luther seriously.

One wonders, then, why such a huge paper (the longest direct response to my work that I have yet encountered) is devoted to them . . .

What Armstrong rips away with one hand (Luther as an authority: The great Reformer), he attempts to give back with the other (Luther as an authority: Protestant Mariology).

This is wrongheaded insofar as it misunderstands what I am trying to state and achieve in my argument (as I am trying to clarify throughout this paper). Secondly, Catholics oppose Luther, Calvin, and other Protestants only as far as they dissent from received Tradition. Where they agree with us, we rejoice. In other words, we oppose their heresy (from the perspective of Catholic orthodoxy).

Mr. Armstrong stayed away from denying my point that Luther’s Mariology was Christocentric.

It doesn’t seem to occur to Mr. Swan that this was because I agree with his point! Of course, I also assert that Catholic Mariology is Christocentric. That was the point of it from the beginning: its development was always for the purpose of safeguarding the divinity of Jesus. This was especially true in the controversies with the Nestorians over the title Theotokos (Mother of God).

5. Cardboard Caricatures of Medieval Marian Piety / St. Alphonsus de Liguori as a “Test Case” of Marian Excess
*In another place, Gritsch explains Luther’s Mariology is presented in the context of “a christocentric theology which Luther saw affirmed in apostolic and patristic thought, but no longer in the normative scholastic tradition of the medieval Western church.” This is a striking implication and indictment of the medieval church.
*
It certainly is, but I haven’t seen anything to prove that this was indeed the case in the “normative scholastic tradition.” I understand this is discussed in greater depth later in Mr. Swan’s paper, so I’ll see if he can “deliver the goods” then, in terms of some actual proof from definitive Catholic doctrinal statements [he did not].

In my description of the medieval climate and Luther’s own admission of partaking in Mariolatry (while a faithful son of the Catholic Church), Mr. Armstrong’s charges that I put forth a “Cardboard Caricatures of Medieval (and Orthodox Catholic) Marian Piety.”

Indeed I did, and rightly so, for Mr. Swan made absurd statements like the following:

Mary had taken the role of intercessor, co-redeemer, and had been elevated to the status of a “goddess” who would defeat Satan. She had become an idol. In the worship of idols, there is no salvation. Mary takes on the attributes of Christ and thus becomes an idol . . .

While Luther could call Mary the “Mother of God,” he was far more concerned to say something about the work of God in Christ than about her, thus, he un-deified her by definition. His usage was not intended to be a quasi-divine statement of veneration similar to medieval or current Roman Catholic trends. When Luther abandoned aspects of Mariology like the Immaculate Conception, it served to further un-deify the goddess . . . making sure that Mary was not to be deified . . .

Her attributes were worshipped in order to gain her favor.

He saw that she had been adorned with attributes that only belonged to Christ.

What Mr. Armstrong fails to do in these criticisms is to put forth doctrinal standards of Marian piety within the Sixteenth Century to correct my (alleged) caricature.

That’s not my task. Rather, it is Mr. Swan’s task to show that any of these absurd claims can be demonstrated by official Catholic teaching. I say that they cannot. The burden of proof is on him, since he is making the charge. I’m not interested in doing a giant study on the Marian folk piety of the Middle Ages. But if Mr. Swan can show me some documentation that the Church ever taught the nonsense he describes above, then I would surely respond.

He cannot seriously be suggesting the latest version of the Catholic catechism was the doctrinal standard for Marian piety four hundred years ago, or for that matter the Second Vatican Council.

Development occurs, of course, but it has been a consistent development with regard to Mary. It was never taught that she was a “goddess” or an “idol” or that she was “deified” or “quasi-divine.”

What he fails to document is whether sixteenth century elite Catholics knew what excessive Marian devotion was.

It’s not my burden. If Mr. Swan thinks he has seen something suggesting this, then he needs to produce it and we can continue the discussion. I don’t waste my time trying to disprove straw men. Mr. Swan needs to demonstrate his extraordinary claims with some solid documentation.

It seems apparent that many of the theologically educated of the sixteenth century participated in excessive Mariology and deviant piety.

By all means, then, I would like to see this “apparent” truth documented by citing official documents and orthodox Catholic theologians who taught the goofy stuff that is alleged by Mr. Swan. He cites in his Appendix C lengthy comments by Jaroslav Pelikan (then Lutheran, now Orthodox). It is obvious that Mr. Swan’s main concern in with the notion of Mary Mediatrix, which he interprets (as far as I can tell) as involving making Mary a “goddess” or an “idol” or “deified” or “quasi-divine.” Of course this is not true, and the subject is quite involved and deserving of its own in-depth treatment. This I have done on my website, in the following papers:

A Biblical and Theological Primer on Mary Mediatrix

Does Mary’s Role as Mediatrix Contradict Jesus Christ as the Sole

Mediator? / Response to a Catholic Critic

Short Dialogue on Mary Mediatrix

An Explanation and Defense of the Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Mary Mediatrix

Mary as Mediatrix: The Patristic, Medieval, and Early Orthodox Evidence

Does St. Alphonsus de Liguori, in The Glories of Mary, Teach That Mary is “Above God” and Can “Manipulate God”?: Corrections of Protestant Misunderstandings of Catholic Mariology (Dave Armstrong vs. Len Lisenbee)

Mary as Mediatrix: Dialogues and Explanations

Several of these are of particular relevance to our present dispute. In the last paper, I have several sections devoted to extensive biblical evidences and analogies to Mary Mediatrix. The notion is not as utterly absent from Scripture as most Protestants assume:

II. Biblical Evidence: Mary, Paul, and “Spirits” as Distributors of Grace
III. Biblical Evidence: John 19:26-27, Revelation 12, and the Daughter of Zion: Mary as Spiritual Mother
IV. Biblical Evidence: Unilateral Atonement and Redemptive Suffering Among Christians as a Direct Analogy to Mary’s Preeminent Role

In my paper, St. Alphonsus de Liguori: Mary-Worshiper & Idolater? [8-9-02], I catalogued how this saint, in the very book which is considered by many to be the epitome of Catholic Mariological, supposedly “idolatrous” excess, made it very clear that he, too, was Christocentric (precisely the thing that Mr. Swan claims that even “educated” Catholics lacked till Martin Luther came along to set them straight). Now it is true that St. Alphonsus lived in the 18th century, yet he was perhaps the foremost (or most “notorious,” depending on one’s perspective) exponent of what many Protestants like Mr. Swan would see as an outrageous, blasphemous Mariology which supposedly raises the Blessed Virgin to a “goddess” or an “idol” or “deified” or “quasi-divine” state. Therefore, it is highly relevant and important to examine closely how he speaks about Jesus Christ, and the centrality of the Lord. I did this. Here are his own statements (all fully documented in the above paper):

1) “My most loving Redeemer and Lord Jesus Christ”
2) “graces that I have received from God”
3) “his precious blood in which alone is our salvation, life, and resurrection.”
4) “the plenitude of all grace which is in Christ as the Head, from which it flows, as   from its source”
5) “God is the source of every good, and the absolute master of all graces”
6) “Mary is only a pure creature”
7) “Mary . . . receives whatever she obtains as a pure favor from God”
8) “Jesus Christ is the only Mediator of justice”
9) “by his merits he obtains us all graces and salvation”
10) ” receiving all she obtains through Jesus Christ, . . . in the name of Jesus Christ”
11) “. . . all graces that have been, that are, and will be dispensed to men . . . through the merits of Christ”
12) ” the mediation of Christ alone is absolutely necessary”
13) “Jesus . . . has supreme dominion over all, and also over Mary”
14) “a mediator, . . . his Son Jesus, who can obtain for thee all that thou desirest.”
15) “He has given thee Jesus for a mediator; and what is there that such a son cannot obtain from the Father?”
16) “Jesus . . . having satisfied divine justice for them [our sins] by his death, he has already effaced them from your souls”

I commented after this list:

Does this sound like — as Len believes — the Catholic Church places Mary “above God,” or that she “can manipulate God,” or “can get things for Catholics from God that Jesus can’t”? Hardly. The truth of the matter is plain to see. Len has gotten his facts wrong. He may believe — based on his own Protestant theological and hermeneutical presuppositions (themselves not above all critique) — that the notion of Mediatrix is thoroughly unbiblical, and in fact, untrue, but he can’t prove that the Catholic system teaches it in such a way that God is lowered and Mary raised to a goddess-like status. That simply is not true, . . .

I then proceeded to document more such statements from St. Alphonsus:

“Either pity me,” will I say with the devout St. Anselm, “O my Jesus, and forgive me, and do thou pity me, my Mother Mary, by interceding for me” . . . my Jesus, forgive me; My Mother Mary, help me. (p. 79)To understand why the holy Church makes us call Mary our life, we must know, that as the soul gives life to the body, so does divine grace give life to the soul; for a soul without grace has the name of being alive but is in truth dead, as it was said of one in the Apocalypse, Thou hast the name of being alive, and thou art dead. [Rev 3:1] Mary, then, in obtaining this grace for sinners by her intercession, thus restores them to life. (p. 80)

Most certainly God will not condemn those sinners who have recourse to Mary, and for whom she prays, since he himself commended them to her as her children. (p. 76)

. . . in us she beholds that which has been purchased at the price of the death of Jesus Christ . . . Mary well knows that her Son came into the world only to save us poor creatures . . . therefore Mary loves and protects them all. (pp. 60-61)

Thou, after God, must be my hope, my refuge, my love in this valley of tears. (pp. 55-56)

St. Augustine declares that “as she then co-operated by her love in the birth of the faithful to the life of grace, she became the spiritual Mother of all who are members of the one Head, Christ Jesus.” (p. 49)

Jesus our Redeemer, with an excess of mercy and love, came to restore this life by his own death on the cross . . . by reconciling us with God he made himself the Father of souls in the law of grace . . . (p. 47)

Whoever places his confidence in a creature independently of God, he certainly is cursed by God; for God is the only source and dispenser of every good, and the creature without God is nothing, and can give nothing. But if our Lord has so disposed it, . . . that all graces should pass through Mary as by a channel of mercy, we not only can but ought to assert that she, by whose means we receive the divine graces, is truly our hope. (p. 174)

. . . not as if Mary was more powerful than her Son to save us, for we know that Jesus Christ is our only Saviour, and that he alone by his merits has obtained and obtains salvation for us . . . (p. 137)

The Eternal Word came from heaven on earth to seek for lost sheep, and to save them he became thy Son. And when one of them goes to thee to find Jesus, wilt thou despise it? The price of my salvation is already paid; my Saviour has already shed his blood, which suffices to save an infinity of worlds. This blood has only to be applied even to such a one as I am. And that is thy office, O Blessed Virgin. (pp. 140-141)

No one denies that Jesus Christ is our only mediator of justice, and that he by his merits has obtained our reconciliation with God . . . St. Bernard says, “Let us not imagine that we obscure the glory of the Son by the great praise we lavish on the mother; for the more she is honored, the greater is the glory of her Son.” (p. 153)

St. Bonaventure: “As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in this world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice” . . . it is our Lord, as in the head, from which the vital spirits (that is, divine help to obtain eternal salvation) flow into us, who are the members of the mystical body . . . (pp. 159-160)God has enriched thee with so great power . . . from all eternity God had determined by another decree that nothing that she asked should ever be refused to the divine Mother. (pp. 183-184)

The angelical Doctor St. Thomas [Aquinas] says [Summa Theologica 2. 2. q. 25, a.1, ad. 3], that we can place our hope in a person in two ways: as a principal cause, and as a mediate one. Those who hope for a favor from a king, hope it from him as lord; they hope for it from his minister or favorite as an intercessor. If the favor is granted, it comes primarily from the king, but it comes through the instrumentality of his favorite; and in this case he who seeks the favor is right in calling the intercessor his hope. The King of Heaven, being infinite goodness, desires in the highest degree to enrich us with his graces; but because confidence is requisite on our part, and in order to increase it in us, he has given us his own Mother to be our mother and advocate, and to her he has given all power to help us; and therefore he wills that we should repose our hope of salvation and of every blessing in her. Those who put their hopes in creatures alone, independently of God, as sinners do, and in order to obtain the friendship and favor of a man, fear not to outrage his divine Majesty, are most certainly cursed by God, as the prophet Jeremias says. (pp. 109-110; cf. p. 220)

. . . thy son Jesus Christ . . . has willed that thou also shouldst interest thyself with him, in order to obtain divine mercies for us. He has decreed that thy prayers should aid our salvation, and has made them so efficacious that they obtain all that they ask. To thee therefore, who art the hope of the miserable, do I, a wretched sinner, turn my eyes. I trust, O Lady, that in the first place through the merits of Jesus Christ, and then through thy intercession, I shall be saved . . . “Jesus is my only hope, and after Jesus the most Blessed Virgin Mary.” (pp. 117-118)

. . . St. Augustine says, “that Mary, having merited to give flesh to the divine Word, and thus supply the price of our redemption, that we might be delivered from an eternal death; therefore is she more powerful than all others to help us to gain eternal life.”

. . . St. Bonaventure, who, considering the great benefit conferred on us by our Lord in giving us Mary for our advocate, thus addresses her: “O truly immense and admirable goodness of our God, which has been pleased to grant thee, O sovereign Mother, to us miserable sinners for our advocate, in order that thou, by thy powerful intercession, mayest obtain all that thou pleasest for us.” (pp. 188-189)

This is orthodox Catholic Mariology, from a very high authority: a Doctor of the Church. We see nothing of the “goddess” nonsense that Mr. Swan thinks is entailed in the notion of Mediatrix. Mr. Swan later cites St. Alphonsus as an example of the medieval tendency towards the notion of “Christ as Judge, Mary the Merciful” (thus my citation of him at length is quite relevant to this dialogue):

Later Graef discusses (canonized) Saint Ligouri . . .

Not to nitpick, but most saints (excepting those before the current formal selective process was developed, post-16th century) were canonized. Secondly, this saint is usually referred to as either St. Alphonsus, or St. Alphonsus de Liguori (just as Thomas Aquinas is referred to as St. Thomas or St. Thomas Aquinas, but rarely, “St. Aquinas”). And the spelling is “Liguori.”

Furthermore, Jaroslav Pelikan, in a more recent book, cited St. Anselm with regard to the relationship of Christ as Mediator and Mary as Mediatrix:

The author of the most influential theological treatise ever written about Christ as Mediator, Why God Became Man, Anselm of Canterbury at the end of the eleventh century, also wrote a treatise On the Virginal Conception and on Original Sin, as well as fervent prayers addressed to the Virgin as Mediatrix. As Anselm himself pointed out, the two treatises were closely connected, because consideration of Christ the Mediator provoked the question of “how it was that God assumed a man from the sinful mass of the human race without sin,” which was also a question about Mary. (Mary Through the Centuries, New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1996, 129-130)

Pelikan further comments, three pages later:

The countervailing force against what the Protestant Reformation was to construe as Mariolatry and as a diminution of the glory of Christ, the sole Mediator, was the recognition that she had been “exalted through thy omnipotent Son, for the sake of thy glorious Son, by thy blessed Son,” as Anselm put it in one of his prayers. It was, moreover, a consensus that Mary had been saved by Christ, a consensus that had a decisive effect on the eventual formulation of the Western doctrine that by her immaculate conception she had been the great exception to the universality of original sin. (Ibid., 133)

Mr. Armstrong shares the same confusion as O’Meara. For Armstrong though, Luther becomes the champion of Marian piety, correcting medieval excess. Armstrong fails to connect Luther’s autobiographical admissions of Mariolatry with his theological reform.

So Luther was an idolater . . . the fact that he was formerly ignorant of orthodox Catholic Mariology does not mean that everyone else was, and that the Church officially declared Mary as a “goddess,” etc. This was not the last time that a theologically-ignorant Catholic converted to Protestantism and then fought against the errors in his own past, as if they were doctrinal Catholic errors.

D. Armstrong’s Luther ascribes to Vatican II?

. . . I do not think Mr. Armstrong can harmonize Vatican II and Luther.

This is a non sequitur and based on more fallacious reasoning, since all I claimed in this regard was the following:

. . . he also strongly criticized excesses in Marian devotion, just as Catholics also do; particularly in Vatican II.

To suggest that Luther’s “veneration” of Mary is nothing but Catholicism properly understood is mistaken.

Of course it is, and I have never stated this (in fact, I have always expressly denied it, since I’ve always recognized that Luther ditched intercession of the saints which is part and parcel of Catholic veneration). Mr. Swan quotes my words more than once, from which he makes another of his false deductions that are becoming oddly commonplace in his writing, where I am concerned. I wrote that Luther:

. . . didn’t feel compelled to create the absolute (and quite unbiblical) silly dichotomy that characterizes present-day Reformed thought and much of Protestantism, generally-speaking — where no creature can ever be given honor, lest this immediately be an assault upon God and idolatry.

This remains true, despite Mr. Swan’s efforts to make me say something I did not say. Note his lack of coherent logic in this instance, where he is, in effect, equating the following two propositions. The first is what I actually asserted. The second is what he wrongly thinks I asserted, as “deduced” from the same words above:

1) Luther didn’t believe that no creature can ever be given honor, lest the one giving it fall into idolatry.2) Luther’s notion of veneration is essentially the same as that in Catholicism (“nothing but Catholicism”).

Read in context, my argument had much more to do with Luther’s dissimilarity with present-day Protestantism (especially the Reformed variety) than with similarity to Catholicism. I stated that he rejected the common Protestant dichotomies.

I would be curious to see how Mr. Armstrong comes down on this issue, . . . Ligouri [sic] taught it and was canonized.

St. Alphonsus’ thought must be balanced by proper consideration of the many Christocentric thoughts that he offered, as I have compiled above.

On what basis did those in the Sixteenth Century decide the orthodoxy of this doctrine? Admitting that it is not current Catholic doctrine does not help those in previous centuries who embraced it.

By the simple fact that Jesus is Savior as well as Judge (Mary is neither, since she is not God); also by the clear biblical teaching of universal atonement (Jesus died for all men), which shows Jesus’ mercy well enough. But Calvinists like Mr. Swan reject universal atonement, so I suppose their Jesus is less merciful than the Catholic Jesus, in which case his criticisms would perhaps be better directed towards his own camp, as it persists in this error to this day.

By the Twentieth Century, one finds the Mother of God praised for her sacrifices and attributes, rather than Christ’s. The original understanding has been reversed: Mariological, not Christological. As an example, note the encyclical of Pope Pius XII from 1954. The following excerpts emphasize the greatness of the Mother of God and her role, rather than Christ:

Ad Caeli Reginam (On Proclaiming the Queenship of Mary; 11 October 1954), was (obviously) primarily about Mary (in terms of subject matter), not Jesus. It is unreasonable to expect a person to always talk about related ideas (even closely-related ideas). To use an analogy that Mr. Swan could relate to as a Protestant (Calvinist): must sanctification always be discussed when justification is discussed? No (most Protestants assert the necessity of sanctification, but consider it as a distinct category from justification). Must limited atonement always be discussed when perseverance of the saints is discussed? No, though all Calvinists believe in TULIP (the acronym of five principles that they adhere to). For that matter, must the Father always be discussed when Jesus the Son is discussed? No, of course not.

One is not obliged to always discuss everything at once. It does not follow, furthermore, that to not emphasize one thing in talking about another, proves that the first thing is disbelieved or considered unimportant. This is simply the rampant Protestant dichotomous mindset. It is not a logical deduction from the fact that Pius XII wrote an encyclical about the Queenship of Mary, where he mentioned Mary more than Jesus. What does Mr. Swan expect?: that every time a Catholic mentions Mary, he has to include a footnote: “and I must emphasize the fact that we believe Jesus is Lord and that He is far above Mary in the scheme of things”? Certain things are regarded as givens and need not always be mentioned. This is also true in science, history, philosophy, and pretty much any field of study.

Mr. Swan’s remaining section on Luther’s use of the term Mother of God suffers from gratuitous assumptions of what Catholics mean when they use the term. To consider these thoughts would require another discussion and take us far afield. My main point was simply that Luther used the term, whereas many Protestants today seem most reluctant to. And that is because Luther understood the patristic sense of the term. Mr. Swan, however, accepts the illusion that the Catholic understanding of Theotokos is somehow different from the patristic conception.

In his footnote 60, Mr. Swan cites Protestant historian, Heiko Oberman: “The warm praise which Luther has for the Mother of God throughout his life, his last sermon on 17 January 1546 included, is not based upon the great qualities of Mary herself but upon the grace granted to her.” Precisely! Of course it is all grace. This is exactly why Catholics are fond of saying things like “Hail Mary, full of grace” (Luke 1:28). The Immaculate Conception is nothing, if not total grace. How could, after all, Mary have participated in an act which was applied to her at her very conception? So the notion many Protestants have: that Catholics are attributing to Mary intrinsic qualities that somehow exist apart from the sheer grace of God, is preposterous.

It is true that we highly honor her for her obedience, but so what?, given the fact that in Hebrews 11, many saints are honored for what they did “in faith.” Does this mean that they, too, somehow did their righteous deeds apart from God’s grace? No, of course not. The same applies to Mary. All that she was, was due to God. She cooperated, but the very cooperation is entirely enabled by God. Mary’s glory is that she “did not not cooperate” (not cooperating with God was Eve’s mistake). But Mr. Swan shows only a dim understanding of all this, as indicated in ludicrous statements like:

Mary was the fourteen-year-old girl that God came to (as a gentleman) and asked her permission to save the world.

What he neglects to realize is that God knows in His providence how any person whom He chooses to involve in His plans will respond. Thus, His providence or sovereignty is not dependent upon that response, as Mr. Swan seems to imply that Catholics believe. This is a non-issue. But Calvinists cannot comprehend anyone working with God in a secondary function, entirely enabled by Him to do so. That is really the bottom line. One must understand theological presuppositions, which cause one to view Mariology in a certain way.

This is illustrated superbly in Mr. Swan’s footnote 69, which cited Vatican II:

“The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman should contribute to life. This is preeminently true of the Mother of Jesus, who gave to the world the Life that renews all things, and who was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.”“Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she “being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”

Mr. Swan provided the bolded words, because, for him, this assent of Mary is a scandal. For the Calvinist, such “assent” and “free cooperation” is impossible, due to their notions of “irresistible grace” and “unconditional election.” For them, whomever God grants His grace cannot resist it. So the categories above are meaningless and/or impossible for the Calvinist. But for Catholics, assent and predestination exist together in paradox (as in the first paragraph above): God causes, but man still cooperates, and gets credit for that cooperation insofar as he could have chosen not to do so. Man is free, and he has a free will, so that he can freely follow God, not just follow because he cannot resist when God calls him.

In any event, we see how Mr. Swan’s Calvinist premises affect his reasoning concerning Mary. One must take a step back and reveal the falsehood and unbiblical nature of these Calvinist notions, but that is beyond our purview here.

6. The Immaculate Conception and the Gospel According to James
*V. The Immaculate Conception
*
A. Historical Documentation

The bulk of Mr. Armstrong’s response was in regard to the Immaculate Conception. I can only speculate the reason being is similar to that of other Catholic apologists: some argue that the Immaculate Conception is part of the very gospel of Jesus Christ.

The reason was described above. Mainly, it is simply an interesting historical study. As for the gospel, this depends on how it is defined. Strictly speaking, the Bible is clear on what the gospel is, and it seems to me that Protestants (if consistent) would want to rely on the Bible for their own definition of it. I shall cite several non-Catholic reference books as to its definition:

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Joseph H. Thayer (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1901, 257):

The term comprises the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven . . . it may be more briefly defined as ‘the glad tidings of salvation through Christ; the proclamation of the grace of God manifested and pledged in Christ.’ (Rom. 1:16; 10:16; 11:28; I Cor. 4:15; II Cor. 8:18; Gal. 2:2; Eph. 3:6; Phil. 1:5, etc.).

New Bible Dictionary, Ed. J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962, 484):

The gospel is the good news that God in Jesus Christ has fulfilled His promises to Israel, and that a way of salvation has been opened to all . . . The use of ‘Gospels’ as a designation of the first four books of the N.T. is post-biblical (2nd century A. D.).

The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, general editor: J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Pub. House, 1974, 424):

The message of God’s redemption in Jesus Christ, which lies at the heart of the NT and the church’s faith. In the NT it is, first, the proclamation by Jesus that the kingdom has drawn near and, then, the proclamation by His disciples that in His life, death, and resurrection the kingdom has been established and that salvation and forgiveness are offered to all who believe.

The trouble is that Mr. Swan does not accept the biblical definition of gospel (as one would expect a Protestant who goes by the formal principle of sola Scriptura to do). He wants to bring in the “man’s tradition” of Calvinism and hold that the gospel is actually not the Good News of the Redemption of Jesus Christ (see, e.g., Catechism of he Catholic Church, #571), but rather, the technical theological construct of Calvinist soteriology, or (briefly summarized), TULIP. This is simply not biblical, and it leads to absurdities, for Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all fully concur as to the facts recounted in the above three definitions. But since Mr. Swan falsely defines the gospel, he is led to the ludicrous position that the Catholic and Calvinist gospels are different. He has stated this in public forums:

I think you misunderstand the gospel in the protestant mind. With the sacraments in Lutheranism, they are not the way one in which one acquires righteousness for eventual salvation. Hence, it would be possible for the Lutheran to believe in a form of the “real presense” and still not deny the gospel, like Rome does. . . . One is saved by faith alone.

CARM
#51395, “RE: Quick reply”
In response to Reply #16
Edited on Fri Jun-13-03 02:13 AM by TertiumQuid
(http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=107&topic_id=51307&mesg_id=51307&page=9&topic_page=2)

. . . Now in my case, I knowingly teach a different gospel than Rome.

CARM
TertiumQuid Sat Jun-14-03 06:50 AM
#51622, “RE: Oh Yes I Do”
In response to Reply #22

I know what Rome teaches, and I deliberately undermine Rome by “preaching” a different gospel than the Roman Catholic Church.

CARM
TertiumQuid Sat Jun-14-03 01:00 PM
#51656, “RE: TQ. I have little faith in anyone’s”
In response to Reply #33
(http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=107&topic_id=51307&mesg_id=51307&page=9&topic_page=4)

What Mr. Armstrong fails to realize is that my paper was not a complete discussion of the development of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

This again illustrates that Mr. Swan fails to comprehend that my paper — while a reply to his in large part — is its own entity, where I explore issues that I find to be of interest. I am not bound to what Mr. Swan desires for me to research and write, according to his own criteria of the moment.

Mr. Swan proceeds to make a rather silly, non sequitur argument, writing, “Mr. Armstrong entertains tangents,” and “I can only speculate his intention was an attempt to make me look incompetent,” and “Armstrong needs to defend his Church’s dogma: the 1854 Immaculate Conception.”  Ironically, then, in his attempt to criticize me for engaging “tangents,” and straying from the subject of his paper, he implies that I ought to do a full-scale defense of the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception (which indeed I have done elsewhere, in several papers and book chapters), as if that had anything to do with the purely historical question of what Luther believed with regard to Mary and (particularly) the Immaculate Conception.

I have no desire to debate this issue. The theological development of the Immaculate Conception is far removed from the topic of my paper.

Nor do I; not in this context. So, alas, Mr. Swan and I agree on something. He then excuses me  “for raising a number of irrelevant tangents and straw men.” Likewise, I return this gracious thoughtfulness by excusing him for his non sequiturs, misunderstanding as to the purpose and scope of my paper, and his straw men of what he thinks are Catholic positions.

. . . my paper had only a brief discussion of Luther’s Position on the Immaculate Conception. My primary point was to note Luther shifted the emphasis from the mother to the Messiah.

That’s not at issue between us; however, it doesn’t necessarily follow from this that he thereby denied that Mary was immaculately conceived. The majority of scholars who have studied that particular issue affirmed that he did believe this his entire life. And that was the central subject of my paper.

Rather than discussing Mary’s sinlessness, Luther insisted Christ’s sinlessness was due entirely to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit during conception.

If indeed Luther stated this, it is virtually blasphemous. Jesus’ sinlessness is not “due entirely” to His Virgin Birth but “due entirely” to the fact that He is God and thus incapable of sinning, by nature. The contrary assertion is quasi-Nestorianism.

I hold that Luther abandoned this earlier position [on the Immaculate Conception].

Mr. Swan can hold any position he likes, but I showed in my previous paper how many Protestant scholars do not take this view. I am inclined to go with the scholars, rather than with Mr. Swan, just as I would give such scholarly consensus (or near-consensus) much more weight than my own opinion.

[Dave (4-29-24: I later modify my position on this, and agree that Luther did change is opinion to an extent later in life. See:

Luther & Mary’s Immaculate Conception: Lutheran Scholars’ Opinions [9-30-10]
*
Luther & the Immaculate Conception: More Non-Catholic Historians & Scholars [9-30-10]
*
Luther & the “Immaculate Purification” of Mary [10-2-10]

It remains true, however — as I contended and documented –, that many Lutheran scholars hold that he did not do so]

***

Go to Part 2

***

Photo credit: Portrait of Martin Luther (1528), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Part one of a dialogue with anti-Catholic Reformed apologist & polemicist James Swan, about Protestant founder Martin Luther’s view of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

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”.

John Chrysostom (c. 345-407) vs. “Faith Alone”

Last updated on: April 25, 2024 at 3:48 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,500+ 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). To verify sources (standard Schaff edition of the Fathers), see the St. John Chrysostom section on the New Advent web page, “The Fathers of the Church”]

***

Baptism and Being “Born Again”

And for what reason, says one, if the laver take away all our sins, is it called, not a laver of remission of sins, nor a laver of cleansing, but a laver of regeneration? Because it does not simply take away our sins, nor simply cleanse us from our faults, but so as if we were born again. (Instructions to Catechumens, First, 3; NPNF1-9)

Baptism and Justification / Sanctification

Hear therefore what follows: “And such were some of you, but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the spirit of our God.” We promise to show you that they who approach the laver become clean from all fornication: but the word has shown more, that they have become not only clean, but both holy and just, for it does not say only “ye were washed,” but also “ye were sanctified and were justified.” What could be more strange than this, when without toil, and exertion, and good works, righteousness is produced? For such is the lovingkindness of the Divine gift that it makes men just without this exertion. (Instructions to Catechumens, First, 3; NPNF1-9)

Ver. 30. “Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified.” Now He justified them by the regeneration of the laver. “And whom He justified, them He also glorified” by the gift, by the adoption. (Homily XV on Romans 8:28: v. 8:30; NPNF1-11)

For, writing to the Corinthians, he says, “But ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. vi. 11.) What then, tell me? were these not baptized into the Father? Then assuredly they were neither washed nor sanctified. (Homily XXX on 2 Corinthians 13:10, 3, v. 13:14; NPNF1-12)

. . . when we had committed many and grievous sins, and had not ceased from youth to extreme old age to defile our souls with ten thousand evil deeds, for none of these sins did He demand from us a reckoning, but granted us remission of them by the washing of Regeneration, and freely gave us Righteousness and Sanctification. (Homily XXVIII on John, v. 3:17; NPNF1-14)

Baptism and Salvation

We have the sum and substance of the good things: through baptism we received remission of sins, sanctification, participation of the Spirit, adoption, eternal life. (Homily XL on Acts 18:18; NPNF1-11)

Yea, again I say, great indeed is Baptism, and without baptism it is impossible to obtain the kingdom. . . . It is impossible to be saved without it, . . . (Homily III on 1 Corinthians 1:10, 6; v. 1:14, 17; NPNF1-12)

Baptismal Regeneration

These verily are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed Head. . . . the others [priests] are the authors of our birth from God, even that blessed regeneration which is the true freedom and the sonship according to grace. . . . our priests have received authority to deal, not with bodily leprosy, but spiritual uncleanness—not to pronounce it removed after examination, but actually and absolutely to take it away. (Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood, Book III, 6; NPNF1-9)

. . . I see that our discourse now constrains us to something more necessary to say what baptism is, and for what reason it enters into our life, and what good things it conveys to us. But, if you will, let us discourse about the name which this mystic cleansing bears: for its name is not one, but very many and various. For this purification is called the laver of regeneration. “He saved us,” he saith, “through the laver of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” It is called also illumination, and this St. Paul again has called it, “For call to remembrance the former days in which after ye were illuminated ye endured a great conflict of sufferings;” and again, “For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and then fell away, to renew them again unto repentance.” It is called also, baptism: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.” (Instructions to Catechumens, First, 2; NPNF1-9)

For it creates and fashions us anew not forming us again out of earth, but creating us out of another element, namely, of the nature of water. For it does not simply wipe the vessel clean, but entirely remoulds it again. For that which is wiped clean, even if it be cleaned with care, has traces of its former condition, and bears the remains of its defilement, but that which falls into the new mould, and is renewed by means of the flames, laying aside all uncleanness, comes forth from the furnace, and sends forth the same brilliancy with things newly formed. (Instructions to Catechumens, First, 3; NPNF1-9)

And consider: a man has gotten grievous sins by committing murder or adultery, or some other crime: these were remitted through Baptism. For there is no sin, no impiety, which does not yield and give place to this gift; for the Grace is Divine. (Homily I on Acts 1:1-2; NPNF1-11)

For if they were full of the Spirit, it was of that which is from the Laver of Baptism. (Homily XV on Acts 6:8; NPNF1-11)

And in another sense, too, a mystery is so called; because we do not behold the things which we see, but some things we see and others we believe. For such is the nature of our Mysteries. I, for instance, feel differently upon these subjects from an unbeliever. . . . He hearing of a laver, counts it merely as water: but I behold not simply the thing which is seen, but the purification of the soul which is by the Spirit. He considers only that my body hath been washed; but I have believed that the soul also hath become both pure and holy; and I count it the sepulchre, the resurrection, the sanctification, the righteousness, the redemption, the adoption, the inheritance, the kingdom of heaven, the plenary effusion of the Spirit. (Homily VII on 1 Corinthians 2:6-7, 2; NPNF1-12)

In Baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead. (Homily XXV on John, v. 3:5; NPNF1-14)

. . . He freely gave to them by Baptism entire remission of their sins. (Homily XXVII on John, v. 3:14; NPNF1-14)

Eucharist and Salvation

. . . what shall we say of the Body of Him Who is God over all, spotless, pure, associate with the Divine Nature, the Body whereby we are, and live; whereby the gates of hell were broken down and the sanctuaries of heaven opened? how shall we receive this with so great insolence? Let us not, I pray you, let us not slay ourselves by our irreverence, but with all awfulness and purity draw nigh to It; and when thou seest It set before thee, say thou to thyself, “Because of this Body am I no longer earth and ashes, no longer a prisoner, but free: because of this I hope for heaven, and to receive the good things therein, immortal life, the portion of angels, converse with Christ; this Body, nailed and scourged, was more than death could stand against; this Body the very sun saw sacrificed, and turned aside his beams; for this both the veil was rent in that moment, and rocks were burst asunder, and all the earth was shaken. This is even that Body, the blood-stained, the pierced, and that out of which gushed the saving fountains, the one of blood, the other of water, for all the world.” . . . But these things I say, not to keep us from approaching, but to keep us from approaching without consideration. For as the approaching at random is dangerous, so the not communicating in those mystical suppers is famine and death. For this Table is the sinews of our soul, the bond of our mind, the foundation of our confidence, our hope, our salvation, our light, our life. When with this sacrifice we depart into the outer world, with much confidence we shall tread the sacred threshold, fenced round on every side as with a kind of golden armor. (Homily XXIV on 1 Corinthians 10:13, 7-8, v. 10:23-24; NPNF1-12)

Parents often entrust their offspring to others to feed; “but I,” saith He, “do not so, I feed you with Mine own flesh, desiring that you all be nobly born, and holding forth to you good hopes for the future. For He who giveth out Himself to you here, much more will do so hereafter. I have willed to become your Brother, for your sake I shared in flesh and blood, and in turn I give out to you the flesh and the blood by which I became your kinsman.” This blood causeth the image of our King to be fresh within us, produceth beauty unspeakable, permitteth not the nobleness of our souls to waste away, watering it continually, and nourishing it. . . . [it] watereth our souls, and worketh in them some mighty power. This blood, if rightly taken, driveth away devils, and keepeth them afar off from us, while it calleth to us Angels and the Lord of Angels. For wherever they see the Lord’s blood, devils flee, and Angels run together. . . . This blood is the salvation of our souls, by this the soul is washed, by this is beautiful, by this is inflamed, this causeth our understanding to be more bright than fire, and our soul more beaming than gold; this blood was poured forth, and made heaven accessible. . . . Christ hath purchased us with His blood, and adorned us with His blood. They who share this blood stand with Angels and Archangels and the Powers that are above, clothed in Christ’s own kingly robe, and having the armor of the Spirit. . . . Now as this is a great and wonderful thing, so if thou approach it with pureness, thou approachest for salvation; but if with an evil conscience, for punishment and vengeance. “For,” It saith, “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily” of the Lord, “eateth and drinketh judgment to himself” ( 1 Cor. xi. 29 ); since if they who defile the kingly purple are punished equally with those who rend it, it is not unreasonable that they who receive the Body with unclean thoughts should suffer the same punishment as those who rent it with the nails. (Homily XLVI on John, v. 6:52; NPNF1-14)

How it is so, hear. “Verily I say unto you, Except a man eat My flesh, and drink My blood, he hath not eternal life in him.” Since the Jews had before asserted that this was impossible, He showeth not only that it is not impossible, but that it is absolutely necessary. Wherefore He addeth, “He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life.” ( Homily XLVII on John, v. 6:53-54; NPNF1-14)

“As the Father liveth, so I live, and he that eateth Me shall live by Me.” And the “life” of which He speaketh is not life merely, but the excellent life; for that He spake not simply of life, but of that glorious and ineffable life, is clear from this. For all men “live,” even unbelievers, and uninitiated, who eat not of that flesh. Seest thou that the words relate not to this life, but to that other? And what He saith is of this kind: “He that eateth My flesh, when he dieth shall not perish nor suffer punishment”; He spake not of the general resurrection, (for all alike rise again,) but concerning the special, the glorious Resurrection, that which hath a reward. (Homily XLVII on John, v. 6:57; NPNF1-14)

Faith Alone (Falsity of) / Antinomianism

This is why they are called martyrs, because when bidden to abjure (the faith), they endure all things, that they may speak the truth: and we, when we are bidden by our passions to abjure, let us not be overcome. Gold saith: Say that Christ is not Christ. Then listen not to it as to God, but despise its biddings. The evil lusts “profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him.” (Tit. i. 16.) For this is not to witness, but the contrary. And indeed that others should deny (Him) is nothing wonderful: but that we who have been called to bear witness should deny Him, is a grievous and a heinous thing: this of all things does the greatest hurt to our cause. “It shall be to (your)selves for a testimony.” (Luke xxi. 13), He saith: but (this is) when we ourselves stand to it firmly. If we would all bear witness to Christ, we should quickly persuade the greater number of the heathen. It is a great thing, my beloved, the life (one leads). . . . Wilt thou learn what a brilliancy there is in a good life, what a force of persuasion it has? . . . This has brought slanders on the awful articles of our creed, this has turned everything upside down, that no one takes any account of good living: this is a mischief to the faith. . . . The badness of the life is a mischief to the doctrine of the Resurrection, to that of the immortality of the soul, to that of the Judgment: many other (false doctrines) too it draws on with itself, fate, necessity, denial of a Providence. . . . This is why the devil has brought in the doctrine of Fate: this is why he has said that the world is without a Providence . . . (Homily XLVII on Acts 21:39-49; NPNF1-11)

Ver. 7. “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.” Here also he awakens those who had drawn back during the trials, and shows that it is not right to trust in faith only. For it is deeds also into which that tribunal will enquire. (Homily V on Romans 1:28: v. 2:7; NPNF1-11)

For “each of us shall give account of himself to God.” In order therefore that we may render up this account with a good defence, let us well order our own lives and stretch out a liberal hand to the needy, knowing that this only is our defence, the showing ourselves to have rightly done the things commanded; there is no other whatever. And if we be able to produce this, we shall escape those intolerable pains of hell, and obtain the good things to come; unto which may we all attain, by the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . (Homily XXI on 1 Corinthians 9:1, 11, v. 9:12; NPNF1-12)

And let us make a little chest for the poor at home; and near the place at which you stand praying, there let it be put: and as often as you enter in to pray, first deposit your alms, and then send up your prayer; and as you would not wish to pray with unwashen hands, so neither do so without alms: since not even the Gospel hanging by our bed is more important than that alms should be laid up for you; for if you hang up the Gospel and do nothing, it will do you no such great good. (Homily XLIII on 1 Corinthians 16:1, 7, v. 16:9; NPNF1-12)

. . . not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us. (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 1; NPNF1-12)

“And a virtuous mode of life,” for the doctrines need a mode of life . . . Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it. For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works. (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 8, v. 1:10-11; NPNF1-12)

For to believe is not all that is required, but also to abide in love. (Commentary on Galatians, v. 5:6; NPNF1-13)

We have believed. This is a beginning; . . . we show our faith by our works . . . Let not the hearing, however, make us too much at our ease; for although He doth it for His own sake, yet notwithstanding He requires a duty on our part. If He says, “Them that honor Me I will honor, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed,” (1 Sam. ii. 30.) let us reflect that there is that which He requires of us also. (Homily II on Ephesians, v. 1:14; NPNF1-13)

“It is the gift,” said he, “of God,” it is “not of works.” Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, saith he, hath required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saveth, but it is because God so willeth, that faith saveth. Since, how, tell me, doth faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God. . . . He did not reject us as having works, but as abandoned of works He hath saved us by grace; so that no man henceforth may have whereof to boast. And then, lest when thou hearest that the whole work is accomplished not of works but by faith, thou shouldest become idle, observe how he continues, Ver. 10. “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.” (Homily IV on Ephesians, v. 2:8-10; NPNF1-13)

Let us then believe to His glory, let us live to His glory, for one is no use without the other; when we glorify Him rightly, but live not rightly, then do we especially insult Him, because we are enrolled under Him as a Master and Teacher, and yet despise Him, and stand in no dread of that fearful judgment seat. It is no wonder that the heathen live impurely; this merits not such condemnation. But that Christians, who partake in such great mysteries, who enjoy so great glory, that they should live thus impurely, this is worst of all, and unbearable. (Homily VII on Philippians, v. 2:9-11; NPNF1-13)

Ver. 16, 17. “Now our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God our Father, which loved us, and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish them in every good work and word.” . . . For this is the comfort of Christians, to do something good and pleasing to God. . . . this is both His work and ours, so that it is in the way both of doctrines, and of actions. (Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians, v. 2:16-17; NPNF1-13)

. . . if faith without a good life is unavailing, much more is the converse true. (Homily V on 1 Timothy, v. 1:20; NPNF1-13)

. . . if we are always hearers, and never doers, we shall reap no advantage from what is said. (Homily II on 2 Timothy, v. 1:12; NPNF1-13)

Faith therefore, without works, is fitly called a mere form without the power. For as a fair and florid body, when it has no strength, is like a painted figure, so is a right faith apart from works. (Homily VIII on 2 Timothy, v. 3:5; NPNF1-13)

He too was one of the guests, for he had been invited; but because, after the invitation and so great an honor, he behaved with insolence towards Him who had invited him, hear what punishment he suffers, how pitiable, fit subject for many tears. For when he comes to partake of that splendid table, not only is he forbidden the least, but bound hand and foot alike, is carried into outer darkness, to undergo eternal and endless wailing and gnashing of teeth. Therefore, beloved, let not us either expect that faith is sufficient to us for salvation; for if we do not show forth a pure life, but come clothed with garments unworthy of this blessed calling, nothing hinders us from suffering the same as that wretched one. (Homily X on John, v. 1:13; NPNF1-14)

“Is it then enough,” saith one, “to believe on the Son, that one may have eternal life?” By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” ( Matt. vii. 21 ); and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. Therefore when He saith, “This is life eternal, that they may know Thee the only true God” ( c. xvii. 3 ), let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life,” and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him”;) yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, “This by itself is eternal life,” nor, “He that doth but believe on the Son hath eternal life,” but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing doth contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment. (Homily XXXI on John, v. 3:35-36; NPNF1-14)

. . . because He had said above, “He that heareth My words and believeth on Him that sent Me,” “is not judged,” lest any one should imagine that this alone is sufficient for salvation, He addeth also the result of man’s life, declaring that “they which have done good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment.” (Homily XXXIX on John, v. 5:28-29; NPNF1-14)

How long shall we neglect our own salvation? Let us bear in mind of what things Christ has deemed us worthy, let us give thanks, let us glorify Him, not by our faith alone, but also by our very works, that we may obtain the good things that are to come . . . (Homily XLVI on John, v. 6:52; NPNF1-14)

. . . a right faith availeth nothing if the life be corrupt, both Christ and Paul declare . . . (Homily LXIII on John, v. 11:40; NPNF1-14)

Faith is indeed great and bringeth salvation, and without it, it is not possible ever to be saved. It suffices not however of itself to accomplish this, . . . on this account Paul also exhorts those who had already been counted worthy of the mysteries; saying, “Let us labor to enter into that rest.” “Let us labor” (he says), Faith not sufficing, the life also ought to be added thereto, and our earnestness to be great; for truly there is need of much earnestness too, in order to go up into Heaven. (Homily VII on Hebrews, v. 4:11-13; NPNF1-14)

Faith and Works

At the same time, however, that he had reached to this height of good works, he did not thereby grow confident; but was full of anxiety and fear, therefore also he fasted rigidly, . . . nor did he say anything like this to himself. “What further need have I of fasting? I have gotten the mastery of myself; I have overcome my lusts; I have mortified my body; I have affrighted demons; I have driven away the devil; I have raised the dead; I have cleansed lepers; I am become terrible to the adverse powers; what further need have I of fasting, or to seek safety from that quarter?” . . . in proportion as he abounded with innumerable good works, so much the more did he fear and tremble. And he learnt this spiritual wisdom from his preceptor; for even he, after he had been rapt into the third heaven, and transported to paradise; and had heard unutterable words; and taken part in such mysteries; and traversed the whole world, like some winged being, when he wrote to the Corinthians, said, I fear “lest by any means having preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” And if Paul was afraid after so many signal good works; . . . much more does it become us to fear; and the rather in proportion as we have stored up numerous good works. . . . For nothing is so apt to exalt to presumption as a conscience full of good works . . . (Homily I on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 9 and 15; NPNF1-9)

If thou art a Christian, believe in Christ; if thou believest in Christ, shew me thy faith by thy works. (Homily V on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 6; NPNF1-9)

Since, therefore, He rendereth to every man according to his works; for this reason He both implanted within us a natural law, and afterwards gave us a written one, in order that He might demand an account of sins, and that He might crown those who act rightly. Let us then order our conduct with the utmost care, and as those who have soon to encounter a fearful tribunal; knowing that we shall enjoy no pardon, if after a natural as well as written law, and so much teaching and continual admonition, we neglect our own salvation. (Homily XII on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 15; NPNF1-9)

But by repentance I mean, not only to forsake our former evil deeds, but also to show forth good deeds greater than those. (Homily X on Matthew 3:1-2, 7; NPNF1-10)

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them which despitefully use you: bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you. That ye may become like your Father which is in Heaven; for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” See how He hath set the highest pinnacle on our good deeds. For this is why He teaches not only to endure a blow, but to offer the right cheek also; not only to add the cloak to the coat, but to travel also two miles with him who compels thee to go one; in order that thou mightest receive with all facility that which is much more than these. (Homily XVIII on Matthew 5:38-40, 4; NPNF1-10)

“For if ye forgive men,” saith He, “your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not, neither will He forgive you.” . . . Since not by grace only, you see, ought we to become His children, but also by our works. And nothing makes us so like God, as being ready to forgive the wicked and wrong-doers; even as indeed He had taught before, when He spake of His “making the sun to shine on the evil and on the good.” (Homily XIX on Matthew 6:1, 11; NPNF1-10)

For as virtue even from things here was signified by Him to have her rewards, so vice also her penalties. For what I am ever saying, that I will say now also: that in both ways He is everywhere bringing about the salvation of His hearers on the one hand by zeal for virtue, on the other by hatred of vice. Thus, because there would be some to admire what He said, while they yield no proof of it by their works, He by anticipation awakens their fears, saying, Though the things spoken be good, hearing is not sufficient for security, but there is need also of obedience in actions, and the whole lies chiefly in this. (Homily XXIV on Matthew 7:21, 3; NPNF1-10)

But He seems to me to say these things, darkly hinting at the Jews, and amongst the believers at those who at first shone forth, but afterwards neglected virtue, and fell back; and those others again that have risen from vice, and have shot beyond many. For we see such changes taking place both with respect to faith and practice. Wherefore I entreat you let us use much diligence both to stand in the right faith, and to show forth an excellent life. For unless we add also a life suitable to our faith, we shall suffer the extremest punishment. . . . And all His parables also, as that of the virgins, that of the net, that of the thorns, that of the tree not bringing forth fruit, demand virtue in our works. . . . And why do I speak of the whole code. For even a part of it overlooked brings upon one great evils . . . they that have not fed the hungry, are for this condemned with the devil. (Homily LXIV on Matthew 19:27, 4; NPNF1-10)

For the former not having undertaken to obey, neither having become hearers of the law, showed forth their obedience in their works; and the latter having said, “All that the Lord shall speak, we will do, and will hearken,” in their works were disobedient. And for this reason, let me add, that they might not think the law would benefit them, He shows that this self-same thing condemns them, like as Paul also saith, “Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Homily LXVII on Matthew 21:12-13, 2; NPNF1-10)

For indeed both by works and by words must we show our good will towards Him. (Rom. vi. 4.) (Homily I on Acts 1:1-2; NPNF1-11)

But since after this grace, whereby we were justified, there is need also of a life suited to it, let us show an earnestness worthy the gift. And show it we shall, if we keep with earnestness charity, the mother of good deeds. (Homily VII on Romans 3:9-18: v. 3:31; NPNF1-11)

For since this discourse was about them that work and them that believe, he shows that the believer works more than the other, and requires more power, and great strength, and sustains no common degree of labor. For they counted faith worthless, as having no labor in it. Insisting then upon this, he shows that it is not only he that succeeds in temperance, or any other virtue of this sort, but he that displays faith also who requires even greater power. . . . Having said then, that he was justified by faith, he shows that he glorified God by that faith; which is a thing specially belonging to a good life. For, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Which is in heaven.” (Matt. v. 16.) But lo! this is shown also to belong to faith! Again, as works need power, so doth faith. (Homily VIII on Romans 4:1-2: v. 4:20-21; NPNF1-11)

Let us then give thanks, that we belong to them that are being saved, and not having been able to save ourselves by works, were saved by the gift of God. But in giving thanks, let us not do this in words only, but in works and actions. (Homily XVIII on Romans 10:14-15: v. 11:6; NPNF1-11)

“To walk worthily,” he says, “of the Lord.” Here he speaks of life and its works, for so he doth also everywhere: with faith he always couples conduct. (Homily II on Colossians, v. 1:9-10; NPNF1-13)

“But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Many consider that their own virtue is sufficient for their salvation, and if they duly regulate their own life, that nothing further is wanting to save them. But in this they greatly err, which is proved by the example of him who buried his one talent, for he brought it back not diminished but entire, and just as it had been delivered to him. It is shown also by the blessed Paul, who says here, “If any one provide not for his own.” The provision of which he speaks is universal, and relates to the soul as well as the body, since both are to be provided for. . . . And so says Isaiah, the chief of the Prophets, “Thou shalt not overlook thy kinsmen of thy own seed.” (Isa. lviii. 7, Sept.) . . . What is meant is this: The law of God and of nature is violated by him who provides not for his own family. But if he who provides not for them has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel, where shall he be ranked who has injured his relatives? With whom shall he be placed? But how has he denied the faith? Even as it is said, “They profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him.” (Tit. i. 16.) What has God, in whom they believe, commanded? “Hide not thyself from thine own flesh.” (Isa. lviii. 7.) How does he then believe who thus denies God? Let those consider this, who to spare their wealth neglect their kindred. It was the design of God, in uniting us by the ties of kindred, to afford us many opportunities of doing good to one another. When therefore thou neglectest a duty which infidels perform, hast thou not denied the faith? For it is not faith merely to profess belief, but to do works worthy of faith. (Homily XIV on 1 Timothy, v. 5:8; NPNF1-13)

But what if his life be unclean, and his deeds evil? It is of such as these especially that Paul declares, that they are not true believers at all: “They profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him.” (Tit. i. 16.) (Homily XXVIII on John, v. 3:18; NPNF1-14)

Justification, Infused (Sanctification)

For this end are fasting and Lent appointed, and so many days of solemn assemblies, auditories, prayers, and teachings, in order that by this earnestness being cleansed in every possible way from the sins which we had contracted during the whole year, we may with spiritual boldness religiously partake of that unbloody Sacrifice; so that should this not be the result, we shall have sustained so much labour entirely in vain, and without any profit. Let every one, therefore, consider with himself what defect he hath corrected, what good work he hath attained to; what sin he hath cast off, what stain he hath purged away; in what respect he has become better. (Homily XX on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 1; NPNF1-9)

For He came to set free from all evil deeds not the body only, but the soul too before the body. Thus, because in the heart we receive the grace of the Spirit, He cleanses it out first. (Homily XVII on Matthew 5:27-28, 2; NPNF1-10)

For it was not of grace only, that harlots entered in, but also of righteousness. For not, as continuing harlots, did they enter in, but having obeyed and believed, and having been purified and converted, so did they enter in. (Homily LXVII on Matthew 21:12-13, 3; NPNF1-10)

Peter calls the man irreproachable in all things one that “worketh righteousness,” [and Paul says] “touching the righteousness which is in the law found blameless.” (Homily VIII on 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, 4; NPNF1-12)

Ver. 11. “And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified.” . . . as if he said, “Consider from what evils God delivered us; how great an experiment and demonstration of loving-kindness He afforded us! He did not limit His redemption to mere deliverance, but greatly extended the benefit: for He also made thee clean. Was this then all? Nay: but He also “sanctified.” Nor even is this all: He also “justified.” Yet even bare deliverance from our sins were a great gift: but now He also filled thee with countless blessing. (Homily XVI on 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, 9, v. 6:11; NPNF1-12)

For His grace touches the very soul, and thence plucks up the sin by the root. Here is the reason why he that hath been forgiven by the king may be seen with his soul yet impure, but the soul of the baptized no longer so, but purer than the very sun-beams, and such as it was originally formed, nay rather much better than that. For it is blessed with a Spirit, on every side enkindling it and making its holiness intense. And as when thou art recasting iron or gold thou makest it pure and new once more, just so the Holy Ghost also, recasting the soul in baptism as in a furnace and consuming its sins, causes it to glisten with more purity than all purest gold. (Homily XL on 1 Corinthians 15:29, 2; NPNF1-12)

But what then is “the Gospel of Righteousness?” That which maketh righteous. By these words he leadeth them to the desire of Baptism, showing that the Gospel is for the working not only of the remission of sins, but also of righteousness. . . . the manner of life ought to keep pace with the Gospel. . . . He saith, “I will dwell in them, and walk in them;” (Lev. xxvi. 12.) for when the mind is become righteous, when it hath put off its sins, it becometh God’s dwelling. (Rom. vi. 16.) (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 7-8, v. 1:10-11; NPNF1-12)

Ver. 24. “And put on the new man.” . . . Observe here how he calls this realizing of virtue, this bringing of it into being from nothing, a “creation.” . . . He straightway created him, he means, to be a son: for this takes place from Baptism. This it is which is the reality, “in righteousness and holiness of truth.” There was of old a righteousness, there was likewise a holiness with the Jews. Yet was that righteousness not in truth, but in figure. For the being clean in body was a type of purity, not the truth of purity; was a type of righteousness, not the truth of righteousness. “In righteousness,” saith he, “and holiness,” which are “of truth.” . . . Now by righteousness is meant universal virtue. For hearken to Christ, how He saith, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in nowise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. v. 20.) And again, he is called righteous, who has no charge against him; for so even in courts of justice we say that that man is righteous, who has been unrighteously treated, and has not done unrighteously in return. If therefore we also before the terrible Tribunal shall be able to appear righteous one towards another, we may meet with some lovingkindness. . . . Our part then is, never to put off the garment of righteousness, which also the Prophet calls, “the garment of salvation” (Isa. lxi. 10.), that so we may be made like unto God. (Homily XIII on Ephesians, v. 4:24; NPNF1-13)

And is then this Spirit within us? Yes, indeed, within us. For when we have driven away lying, and bitterness, and fornication, and uncleanness, and covetousness, from our souls, when we are become kind, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, when there is no jesting, when we have rendered ourselves worthy of it, what is there to hinder the Holy Spirit from coming and lighting upon us? And not only will He come unto us, but He will fill our hearts; and when we have so great a light kindled within us, then will the way of virtue be no longer difficult to attain, but will be easy and simple. (Homily XIX on Ephesians, v. 5:18-21; NPNF1-13)

As, for instance, great were the sufferings of Job, yet he suffered with thankfulness; and he was justified, not because he suffered, but because in suffering he endured it thankfully. (Homily IX on 2 Timothy, v. 4:8; NPNF1-13)

Justification, Ongoing

And look at the carefulness of God; neither did he give the whole to thee then, nor withhold the whole, but gave part, and promised part. And for what reason did he not give the whole then? In order that thou mightest show thy faith about Him, believing, on his promise alone, in what was not yet given. And for what reason again did he not there dispense the whole, but did give the grace of the Spirit, and righteousness and sanctification? In order that he might lighten thy labors for thee, and by what has been already given may also put thee in good hope for that which is to come. (Instructions to Catechumens, Second, 1; NPNF1-9)

Do not then seek all at once, but gently, and by little and little, ascend this ladder, that leads thee up to Heaven. (Homily LXIII on Matthew 19:16, 3; NPNF1-10)

Merit

Knowing these things then, let us fortify ourselves with virtue on all sides, and thus we shall avert the wrath of God, and let us make the members of the body instruments of righteousness; . . . (Homily IV on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 12; NPNF1-9)

For as he who is living in iniquity, even before hell, hath punishment, being stung by his conscience; so the man who is rich in good works, even before the kingdom, will have the benefit of exceeding joy, in that he is nourished with blessed hopes. (Homily XVI on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 13; NPNF1-9)

For this reason, the greater the good works we do, the less let us say of ourselves; this being the way to reap the greatest glory both with men and with God. Or rather, not only glory from God, but a reward, yea, a great recompense. Demand not therefore a reward that thou mayest receive a reward. Confess thyself to be saved by grace, that He may profess Himself a debtor to thee; and not for thy good works only, but also for such rightness of mind. (Homily III on Matthew 1:1, 8; NPNF1-10)

. . . if thou desire to become equal to the apostles, there is nothing to hinder thee. . . . let us imitate those things whereby the apostles became great. . . . From all worldly things, therefore, let us withdraw ourselves, and dedicate ourselves to Christ, that we may both be made equal to the apostles according to His declaration, and may enjoy eternal life; unto which may we all attain, by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ to whom be glory and might forever and ever. Amen. (Homily XLVI on Matthew 13:24-30, 4; NPNF1-10)

Let us become lovers of virtue. For so both before reaching the kingdom we shall reap the greatest benefits here, and when we are departed thither we shall partake of the eternal blessings; unto which God grant we may all attain by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . (Homily LXII on Matthew 19:1, 6; NPNF1-10)

For even if all were believers, still all were not alike, but were different in their merits. . . . For when they who labor more, do not receive the greater reward also, many become more listless. On this ground even in the kingdom, the honors are not equal, nor among the disciples were all alike, but the three were preëminent above the rest. And among these three again there was a great difference. For this is a very exact method observed by God even to the last. Hence, “one star differeth from another star in glory,” (1 Cor. xv. 41), it says. And yet all were Apostles and all are to sit on twelve thrones, and all left their goods, and all companied with Him; still it was the three He took. . . . all the righteous are not to enjoy the same lot, if they exceed others even a little . . . (Homily XXXI on Romans 16:5, v. 16:16; NPNF1-11)

Here then let us not ask for our crowns, lest when the crowns come in their season, we diminish our recompense. For as in the case of artificers, they who support themselves and work receive higher pay; while those who have their maintenance with their employers, are curtailed in no small part of the wages; so also in regard to the saints: he that doth immense good and suffers extreme evil hath his reward unimpaired and a far more abundant recompense, not only for the good things which he hath done, but also for the evil which he hath suffered. But he that enjoys rest and luxury here, hath not such bright crowns there. Let us not then seek for our recompense here. But “then” of all times let us rejoice, when doing well we suffer ill. For God hath in store for us in that world not only the reward of our good deeds, but that of our temptations also. (Homily XLIII on 1 Corinthians 16:1, 6, v. 16:9; NPNF1-12)

. . . in saying “God will perfect it,” this also again is made their praise, who have drawn to them the grace of God, so that He aids them in going beyond human nature. And in another way also a praise, as that “such are your good deeds that they cannot be of man, but require the divine impulse.” (Homily I on Philippians, v. 1:6; NPNF1-13)

. . . because the Pharisee only said, “I am not as this publican,” he destroyed all his merit. (Homily II on 2 Timothy, v. 1:12; NPNF1-13)

Let us labor earnestly then to become clean; . . . (Homily XII on Hebrews, v. 7:8; NPNF1-14)

For it is not merely freedom from sins which makes a man holy, but also the presence of the Spirit, and the wealth of good works. (Homily XVII on Hebrews, v. 10:1; NPNF1-14)

Sacraments and Salvation

. . . what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. . . . what priests do here below God ratifies above . . . (Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood, Book III, 5; NPNF1-9)

Salvation and Works

How then can one be saved? it may be asked. By application of the countervailing remedies: alms, prayers, compunction, repentance, humility, a contrite heart, contempt of possessions. For God hath marked out for us innumerable ways of salvation, if we be willing to attend. Let us then attend, and let us every way cleanse out our wounds, showing mercy, remitting our anger against them that have displeased us, giving thanks for all things to God, fasting according to our power, praying sincerely, “making unto ourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness.” For so shall we be able to obtain pardon for our offenses, and to win the promised good things; whereof may we all be counted worthy, by the grace and love toward man of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and might forever and ever. Amen. (Homily XLI on Matthew 12:25-26, 6; NPNF1-10)

. . . in like manner now should I say Christ said this, from every motive to compel them, after the grace of God, to set their hopes of salvation and approval on the proof of their own good works. (Homily LXV on Matthew 20:17-19, 3; NPNF1-10)

Seest thou how not only the spoiler, and the covetous, nor only the doer of evil things, but also he that doeth not good things, is punished with extreme punishment. Let us hearken then to these words. As we have opportunity, let us help on our salvation, let us get oil for our lamps, let us labor to add to our talent. For if we be backward, and spend our time in sloth here, no one will pity us any more hereafter, though we should wail ten thousand times. . . . For this end God gave us speech, and hands, and feet, and strength of body, and mind, and understanding, that we might use all these things, both for our own salvation, and for our neighbor’s advantage. (Homily LXXVIII on Matthew 25:1-30, 2; NPNF1-10)

For it is upon works that both punishment and reward depend, not upon circumcision and uncircumcision. (Homily V on Romans 1:28: v. 2:10; NPNF1-11)

For he that is saved as a righteous man has a confidence accompanying his salvation. (Homily VIII on Romans 4:1-2: v. 1:1-2; NPNF1-11)

Let us then also glorify Him by faith as well as by works, that we may also attain to the reward of being glorified by Him. (Homily VIII on Romans 4:1-2: v. 4:21; NPNF1-11)

You see how he neither puts prayer without works, nor works without prayer. For after giving them credit for their obedience, then he prays; to show that we need both, our own part as well as God’s part, if we are to be duly saved. For it was not before only, but now too, even though we be great and in high esteem, we need grace from Him. (Homily XXXII on Romans 16:17-18, v. 16:20; NPNF1-11)

“Which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand. By which also ye are saved, in what word I preached unto you; if ye hold it fast, except ye believed in vain.”

Seest thou how he calls themselves to be witnesses of the things spoken? And he saith not, “which ye heard,” but, “which ye received,” demanding it of them as a kind of deposit, and showing that not in word only, but also by deeds and signs and wonders they received it, and that they should hold it safe. . . . by demonstration from his deeds they were fully persuaded, not by bare words . . . (Homily XXXVIII on 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, 2; NPNF1-12)

. . . if we have been earnest, having in sufficiency the plea which comes from each man’s own works, we shall depart with confidence, and shall obtain the good things that are laid up for them that love God . . . (Homily XLII on 1 Corinthians 15:47, 5, v. 15:58; NPNF1-12)

. . . so truly is your salvation also then more especially put into action, that is, is displayed, increased, heightened, when it hath endurance, when it suffereth and beareth all things nobly. So then the work of salvation consisteth not in doing evil, but in suffering evil. Moreover he saith not, “which worketh,” but, “which is wrought,” to show that together with their own willingness of mind, grace also which wrought in them did contribute much. (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 1; NPNF1-12)

“For good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.” Not merely that we should begin, but that we should walk in them, for we need a virtue which shall last throughout, and be extended on to our dying day. If we had to travel a road leading to a royal city, and then when we had passed over the greater part of it, were to flag and sit down near the very close, it were of no use to us. This is the hope of our calling; for “for good works” he says. Otherwise it would profit us nothing. . . . As the Apostle saith “and the sanctification, without which no man shall see the Lord.” (Heb. xii. 14.) (Homily IV on Ephesians, v. 2:10; NPNF1-13)

“Through your supplication,” he adds, “and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ according to my earnest expectation and hope.” Behold the humble-mindedness of this blessed one; he was striving in the contest, he was now close to his crown, he had done ten thousand exploits, for he was Paul, and what can one add to this? still he writes to the Philippians, I may be saved “through your supplication,” I who have gained salvation through countless achievements. (Homily III on Philippians, v. 1:18-20; NPNF1-13)

Ver. 19. “That they may lay hold,” he says, “on eternal life.” For the doing of good works can secure the enjoyment of eternal life. (Homily XVIII on 1 Timothy, v. 6:19; NPNF1-13)

Salvation, Instant (Falsity of)

Tell me, what wouldest thou? “not that ye give heed to me, but that ye ‘work out your own salvation with fear and trembling’”; for it is impossible for one, who lives devoid of fear, to set forth any high or commanding example; and he said not merely “with fear,” but “and with trembling,” which is an excessive degree of fear. Such fear had Paul: and therefore he said, I fear “lest having preached to others, I myself should be rejected.” (1 Cor. ix. 27.) For if without the aid of fear temporal things can never be achieved, how much less spiritual matters; for I desire to know, who ever learnt his letters without fear? who has become a proficient in any art, without fear? But if, when the devil does not lie in the way, where indolence is the only obstacle, so much of fear is necessary merely in order that we may master that indolence which is natural to us; where there is so fierce a war, so great hindrances, how can we by any possibility be saved without fear? (Homily VIII on Philippians, v. 2:12-16; NPNF1-13)

But “one thing,” says he, “forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, I press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” For what made him reach forward unto the things which are before, was his forgetting the things that are behind. He then, who thinks that all is accomplished, and that nothing is wanting to him for the perfecting of virtue, may cease running, as having apprehended all. But he who thinks that he is still distant from the goal, will never cease running. This then we should always consider, even though we have wrought ten thousand good deeds; for if Paul, after ten thousand deaths, after so many dangers, considered this, how much more should we? For I fainted not, saith he, although I availed not, after running so much; nor did I despair, but I still run, I still strive. This thing only I consider, that I may in truth advance. . . . “For our citizenship is in heaven” (Philip. iii. 20.), there is the prize; . . . Teach thy feet to be sure, for there are many slippery places, and if thou fallest, straightway thou losest much. But yet if thou fall, rise up again. Even thus mayst thou obtain the victory. . . . Look upward, where the prize is; the sight of the prize increaseth the determination of our will. The hope of taking it suffereth not to perceive the toils, it maketh the distance appear short. And what is this prize? No palm branch; but what? The kingdom of heaven, everlasting rest, glory together with Christ, the inheritance, brotherhood, ten thousand good things, which it is impossible to name. (Homily XII on Philippians, v. 3:13-14; NPNF1-13)

. . . even after sanctification we have yet need of much faith, that we may not be shaken. (Homily III on 2 Thessalonians, v. 2:14; NPNF1-13)

. . . and in after time there needs for what remains much earnestness. In order to preserve our purity, it is not sufficient for us merely to have been baptized and to have believed, but we must if we will continually enjoy this brightness, display a life worthy of it. This then is God’s work in us. To have been born the mystical Birth, and to have been cleansed from all our former sins, comes from Baptism; but to remain for the future pure, never again after this to admit any stain belongs to our own power and diligence. (Homily X on John, v. 1:12; NPNF1-14)

Salvation, Moral Assurance of

Tribulations, that is, are so far from confuting these hopes, that they even prove them. For before the things to come are realized, there is a very great fruit which tribulation hath—patience; and the making of the man that is tried, experienced. And it contributes in some degree too to the things to come, for it gives hope a vigor within us, since there is nothing that so inclines a man to hope for blessings as a good conscience. Now no man that has lived an upright life is unconfiding about things to come, as of those who have been negligent there are many that, feeling the burden of a bad conscience, wish there were neither judgment nor retribution. What then? do our goods lie in hopes? Yes, in hopes—but not mere human hopes, which often slip away, . . . No such lot is ours: our hope is sure and unmoveable. (Homily IX on Romans 4:23: v. 5:4-5; NPNF1-11)

Thou too hast believed, thou hast performed many good deeds, thou hast mounted high: secure thyself, be in fear as thou standest, and keep a wary eye, lest thou fall thence. For manifold are the spiritual sorts of wickedness which aim to cast thee down. (Eph. vi. 12.) “Serve the Lord with fear,” he says, “and rejoice unto Him with trembling.” (Ps. ii. 11.) And how is rejoicing compatible with “trembling”? Yet this, be assured, is the only rejoicing; for when we perform some good work, and such as beseemeth those who do anything “with trembling,” then only do we rejoice. (Homily VIII on Philippians, v. 2:12-16; NPNF1-13)

Suffering, Redemptive (Participation in Christ’s Suffering)

. . . the conduct of Paul far exceeds this. For all the rest leaving their own blessings chose to be partakers in the afflictions of others: but Paul did a thing much greater. For it was not that he consented to be a partaker in others’ misfortunes, but he chose himself to be at all extremities that other men might enjoy blessings. Now it is not the same for one who lives in luxury to cast away his luxury and suffer adversity, as for one himself alone suffering adversity, to cause others to be in security and honor. For in the former case, though it be a great thing to exchange prosperity for affliction for your neighbor’s sake, nevertheless it brings some consolation to have partakers in the misfortune. But consenting to be himself alone in the distress that others may enjoy their good things,—this belongs to a much more energetic soul, and to Paul’s own spirit. (Homily XXV on 1 Corinthians 10:25, 4, v. 11:1; NPNF1-12)

Having spoken of one, and that the chief ground of comfort and consolation, namely, having fellowship [by sufferings] with Christ: he layeth down as second this which he now mentions, namely, that the salvation of the disciples themselves was procured thereby. “Faint not, therefore, he says, nor be confounded and afraid because we are afflicted; for this same thing were rather a reason for your being of good cheer: for had we not been afflicted, this had been the ruin of you all.” How and wherein? For if through lack of spirit and fear of danger we had not preached unto you the word whereby ye learned the true knowledge, your situation had been desperate. . . . For, saith he, the greater the intensity of our persecutions, the greater should be the increase of your good hope; because the more abundant also in proportion is your salvation and consolation. (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 1; NPNF1-12)

For He did not only die for us, but even after His death He is ready to be afflicted for your sakes. He is eagerly and vehemently set upon showing that He is even now exposed to peril in His own Body for the Church’s sake, and he aims at this point, namely, ye are not brought unto God by us, but by Him, even though we do these things, for we have not undertaken a work of our own, but His. And it is the same as if there were a band which had its allotted leader to protect it, and it should stand in battle, and then when he was gone, his lieutenant should succeed to his wounds until the battle were brought to a close. Next, that for His sake also he doeth these things, hearken: “For His Body’s sake,” he saith, assuredly meaning to say this: “I pleasure not you, but Christ: for what things He should have suffered, I suffer instead of Him.” See how many things he establishes. Great, he shows, is the claim upon their love. As in his second Epistle to the Corinthians, he wrote, saying, “he committed unto us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. v. 20.); and again, “We are ambassadors on behalf of Christ; as though God were entreating by us.” So also here he saith, “For his sake I suffer,” that he may the more draw them to Him. That is, though He who is your debtor is gone away, yet I repay. For, on this account he also said, “that which is lacking,” to show that not even yet does he consider Him to have suffered all. “For your sake,” he saith, and even after His death He suffers; seeing that still there remains a deficiency. (Homily IV on Colossians, v. 1:24; NPNF1-13)

Ver. 10. “Therefore I endure all things,” he says, “for the elect’s sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” Behold another incentive. I endure these things, he says, not for myself, but for the salvation of others. It was in my power to have lived free from danger; to have suffered none of these things, if I had consulted my own interest. On what account then do I suffer these things? For the good of others, that others may obtain eternal life. What then dost thou promise thyself? He has not said, simply on account of these particular persons; but “for the elect’s sake.” If God has chosen them, it becomes us to suffer everything for their sakes. “That they also may obtain salvation.” By saying, “they also,” he means, as well as we. For God hath chosen us also; and as God suffered for our sakes, so should we suffer for their sakes. Thus it is a matter of retribution, not of favor. On the part of God it was grace, for He having received no previous benefit, hath done us good: but on our parts it is retribution, we having previously received benefits from God, suffer for these, for whom we suffer, in order “that they may obtain salvation.” (Homily IV on 2 Timothy, v. 2:10; NPNF1-13)

. . . he says, “If we be dead with Him, we shall also live with Him.” For say, shall we partake with Him in things laborious and painful; and shall we not in things beneficial? But not even a man would act thus, nor, if one had chosen to suffer affliction and death with him, would he refuse to him a share in his rest, if he had attained it. But how are we “dead with Him”? This death he means both of that in the Laver, and that in sufferings. For he says, “Bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus” (2 Cor. iv. 10.); and, “We are buried with Him by baptism into death” (Rom. vi. 4.); and, “Our old man is crucified with Him”; and, “We have been planted together in the likeness of His death.” (Rom. vi. 5, 6.) But he also speaks here of death by trials: and that more especially, for he was also suffering trials when he wrote it. (Homily V on 2 Timothy, v. 2:11-14; NPNF1-13)

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

. . . do according to thy power, with what has been entrusted to thee, to extend the holiness which thou hast received, and to make the righteousness which comes from the laver brighter, and the gift of grace more radiant; even as therefore Paul did, increasing all the good things which he received by his subsequent labors, and his zeal, and his diligence. (Instructions to Catechumens, Second, 1; NPNF1-9)

. . . if we be careless, we shall not be able to obtain salvation, no not even by the help of others; if, on the other hand, we be watchful, we shall be able to do this by ourselves, and by ourselves rather than by others. Yes; for God is more willing to give His grace to us, than to others for us; that we by endeavoring ourselves to do away His wrath, may both enjoy confidence towards Him, and become better men. Thus He had pity on the Canaanitish woman, thus He saved the harlot, thus the thief, when there was none to be mediator nor advocate. (Homily V on Matthew 1:22-23, 7; NPNF1-10)

. . . let us labor for a little while, that we may win the perpetual and imperishable crowns; unto which may we all attain, by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and might forever and ever. Amen. (Homily XXXIX on Matthew 12:1, 4; NPNF1-10)

Only let us also bring ourselves into a state meet for the grace from above, and all becomes easy. (Homily IV on Acts 2:1-2; NPNF1-11)

“And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together.” (v. 31.) This was the proof that they were heard, and of His visitation. “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” . . . Do you see that together with the grace of God they also contributed their part? For everywhere it ought to be well observed, that together with the grace of God they do their part likewise. . . . again, that “they were all together.” (ch. iii. 6.) But in this place, having mentioned that they were heard, the sacred writer proceeds to speak also of them, what virtue they showed. Moreover, he is just about to enter upon the narrative of Sapphira and Ananias, and with a view to show the detestable conduct of that pair, he first discourses of the noble behavior of the rest. (Homily XI on Acts 4:23; NPNF1-11)

But when you hear of grace, think not that the reward of resolve on our part is thereby cast aside; for he speaks of grace, not to disparage the labor of resolve on our part, but to undermine . . . the haughtiness of an insolent spirit . . . Do not thou then, because that Paul hath called this a gift of grace, grow supine. (Homily II on Romans 1:8: v. 11; NPNF1-11)

Ver. 18. “For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make Gentiles obedient by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God.” . . . Nor can it be said that I have been entrusted indeed with the charge, but yet have not executed it. Or rather, it is not I that have executed, but Christ. Wherefore also it is in Him that I boast, not about common things, but about spiritual. . . . See how violently he tries to show that the whole is God’s doing, and nothing his own. For whether I speak anything, or do anything, or work miracles, He doth all of them, the Holy Spirit all. And this he says to show the dignity of the Holy Spirit also. . . . the exhibition of actions and conversation, the dead that were raised, the devils that were cast out, and the blind that were healed, and the lame that leaped, and the other marvellous acts, all whereof the Holy Spirit wrought in us. (Homily XXIX on Romans 15:14, v. 15:18; NPNF1-11)

Ver. 9. For we are God’s fellow-workers: “ye are God’s husbandry, God’s building.” Seest thou how to them also he hath assigned no small work, having before laid it down that the whole is of God? . . . Ver. 10. “According to the Grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise master-builder I laid a foundation.”

. . . in speaking of himself as wise, he allowed not this to stand as though it were something of his own; but first attributing himself entirely unto God, . . . (Homily VIII on 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, 6, v. 3:9-10; NPNF1-12)

Ver. 2. “Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful:” that is, that he do not appropriate to himself his master’s goods, that he do not as a master lay claim for himself but administer as a steward. For a steward’s part is to administer well the things committed to his charge: not to say that his master’s things are his own; but, on the contrary, that his own are his master’s. Let every one think on these things, both he that hath power in speech and he that possesses wealth, namely, that he hath been entrusted with a master’s goods and that they are not his own; let him not keep them with himself, nor set them down to his own account; but let him impute them unto God who gave them all. . . . And Paul, no less, when he had said, “I labored more abundantly than they all,” (1 Cor. xv. 10.) added, “yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” Elsewhere also, setting himself strongly against the same persons, he said, “For what hast thou which thou didst not receive?” (C. iv. 7.) “For thou hast nothing of thine own, neither wealth, nor speech, nor life itself; for this also is surely the Lord’s. (Homily X on 1 Corinthians 3:18-19, 5, v. 4:2; NPNF1-12)

Ver. 10. “But by the grace of God I am what I am.” Seest thou again another excess of humility? in that the defects he imputes to himself, but of the good deeds nothing; rather he refers all to God. Next, lest he might hereby render his hearer supine, he saith, “And His grace which was bestowed upon me was not found vain.” And this again with reserve: in that he said not, “I have displayed a diligence worthy of His grace,” but, “it was not found vain.” “But I labored more abundantly than they all.” He said not, “I was honored,” but, “I labored;” . . . For if he labored more, the grace was also more: but he enjoyed more grace, because he displayed also more diligence. (Homily XXXVIII on 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, 7, v. 15:10-11; NPNF1-12)

. . . “for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do;” (1 Cor. Xvi. 10.) . . . he elsewhere saith, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh.” (Col. i. 24.) Yet neither here nor there is it from boldness or any presumptousness. For as they wrought greater miracles than He according to that saying of His, “he that believeth on Me shall do greater works than these,” (John xiv. 12.) but all is of Him that worketh in them; so did they suffer also more than He, but all again is of Him that comforteth them, and fitteth them to bear the evils that betide them. (Homily I on 2 Corinthians 1:1, 4, 2, 4; NPNF1-12)

And indeed it is no small praise, that God should work in one. For if He is “no respecter of persons,” as indeed He is none, but is looking to our purpose when He aids us in good deeds, it is evident that we are agents in drawing Him to us; so that even in this view he did not rob them of their praise. . . . But if God will perfect, then neither shall there be much labor, but it is right to be of good courage, for that they shall easily accomplish all, as being assisted by Him. (Homily I on Philippians, v. 1:6; NPNF1-13)

Do thou be bold; “for it is God that worketh in you.” If then He worketh, it is our part to bring a mind ever resolute, clenched and unrelaxed. “For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to work.” “If He does Himself work in us to will, how dost thou exhort us? for if He works Himself even the will, the words, which you speak to us, have no meaning, ‘that ye have obeyed’; for we have not ‘obeyed’; it is without meaning that thou sayest, ‘with fear and trembling’; for the whole is of God.” It was not for this that I said to you, “for it is He that worketh in you both to will and to work,” but my object was to relieve your anxiety. If thou wilt, in that case He will “work in thee to will.” Be not affrighted, thou art not worsted; both the hearty desire and the accomplishment are a gift from Him: for where we have the will, thenceforward He will increase our will. For instance, I desire to do some good work: He has wrought the good work itself, and by means of it He has wrought also the will. Or he says this in the excess of his piety, as when he declares that our well-doings are gifts of grace. (Homily VIII on Philippians, v. 2:12-16; NPNF1-13)

And thus will ye make the labor light for us, in all things taking a part with us, and stretching out a hand, and becoming sharers and partakers, both in one another’s salvation, and each one in his own. (Homily XXX on Hebrews, v. 12:15; NPNF1-14)

Works, Good (in Grace)

For say, whence can an excellent life proceed? From no source, except from a Divine Power working in us. (Homily XLVII on Acts 21:39-49; NPNF1-11)

For just as food maintaineth our life, and by this ruleth the body, so if we have good works, we shall have the Spirit; and if we have the Spirit, we shall also have good works. As also, on the other hand, if we have no works, the Spirit flieth away. But if we be deserted by the Spirit, we shall also halt in our works. (Homily XXVIII on Romans 15:8, v. 15:13; NPNF1-11)

Works of the Law / “New Perspective on Paul”

Ver. 32. “Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law.” . . . For this he says is the cause of their destruction: “Because it was not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law,” that they wished to be justified. And he does not say, “by works,” but, “as it were by the works of the Law,” to show that they had not even this righteousness. (Homily XVI on Romans 9:1: v. 9:32; NPNF1-11)

***

Summary: I compile extensive writings from St. John Chrysostom (c. 345-407): all of which express his opposition to the novel 16th century innovation of “faith alone”.

Justification: Reply to Jordan Cooper

Last updated on: April 24, 2024 at 12:33 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Highlighting Love as the Fulfilling of the Law & Commandments, in Relation to Justification & Salvation

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 16th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Jordan Cooper” section at the top of my Lutheranism web page.

Bishop Barron’s words will be in green.

*****

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you’ve received benefit from this or any of my 4,500+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (email address) on the sidebar to the right, above the 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 concretely supports my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

*****

This is a response to some earlier portions of Jordan’s YouTube video, “A Response to Bishop Barron on Justification” (4-20-24).

3:26 we’re justified or saved — set right — not by works of the law but by faith, so Luther says by grace through faith, and he intensifies it by saying gratia sola: by grace alone. By faith alone we’re saved and not by the works of the law.

Catholics don’t disagree with this Protestant understanding at all; particularly if we are talking about initial justification. The Council of Trent, in addressing justification, made this very clear:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

Man can do absolutely nothing to obtain initial justification (a position that is contrary to semi-Pelagianism); therefore, at this point it is monergistic:

CANON III.-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.

[see also Decree on Justification: chapter 5]

Man’s free will to do any good is “moved and excited by God”: at which time man can then cooperate, in this grace:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

Justification is by grace alone (sola gratia): Decree on Justification: chapter 8; Canon 10:

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

Good works and merit proceed wholly from the grace of God through the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf (not from ourselves). They are necessary but they do not earn salvation, which is by grace alone: Decree on Justification: chapter 16; Canons 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 32, 33.

Vatican I also expressed our doctrine in a beautiful way:

Wherefore faith itself, even when it does not work by charity [Gal 5:6], is in itself a gift of God, and the act of faith is a work pertaining to salvation, by which man yields voluntary obedience to God Himself, by assenting to and cooperating with His grace, which he is able to resist (can. v). (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, ch. III, “Of Faith”)

6:20 you have the text like Romans 4 and Romans 3 in particular dealing with justification apart from works of the law or the one who is justified apart from works . . .

I thoroughly dealt with Romans 4 in reply to Jordan:

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]

But he has recently stated on my Facebook page that he doesn’t have the time to dialogue with me. That’s fine if he doesn’t (we all prioritize and are busy). I just want my readers to know, for the record, that I have addressed this and many other claims in his talks. They are by no means unanswerable.

6:32 and then you do have texts that speak for example about the final judgment and the role of good works in the final judgment . . .

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

7:20 I really don’t see any issue within Romans 13 that would even pose a difficulty at all regarding the question of justification through faith, because this text says nothing whatsoever about justification it simply says that to love one another is to fulfill the law

I completely disagree and say that it is related to the overall question. Love is not faith, let alone “faith alone” in the larger sense, in which Protestants (the Lutheran Melanchthon initiated this) separate sanctification from justification and make it non-obligatory for salvation. A quick search of “fulfill” in Romans is highly instructive (and a new motif that I was unfamiliar with):

Romans 8:3-4 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, [4] in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Romans 9:30-32 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; [31] but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. [32] Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. . . .

Romans 13:8-11 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. [9] The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” [10] Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [11] Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed;

The commandments are fulfilled by love. Lest anyone think that the commandments are irrelevant to salvation itself (and are relegated only to non-salvific sanctification — as in Protestant theology), note what Jesus thought about it:

Matthew 5:16-20 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. [17] “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. [18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. [19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:16-19 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.”

Note how in both sayings, keeping the commandments (i.e., basically good works and expressions of love as opposed to faith alone) was central in the process of salvation and attaining to heaven and eternal life.

8:02 love is the fulfillment of the law, so I don’t really understand what the problem there would be in terms of the doctrine of justification through faith alone. because this particular text in Paul says nothing whatsoever about justification. He simply says that the love is the fulfillment of the law and therefore Christians are called to love one another and these various Ten Commandments are fulfilled in love. That’s what we are called to do.

Of course we are. All agree on that. The problem here for faith alone is that the keeping of the commandments is directly tied to salvation, which is contrary to Protestant teaching. This connection is made more clear in the cross-referencing of Matthew 5 and 19, but “salvation” is also alluded to in Romans 13:11.

8:35 it’s not the case that [the] Lutheran would say that the Christian does not begin to fulfill the law through love

I know. Again, he misses the point, which is the tie-in to salvation itself, contrary to sola fide and Protestant imparted, external justification. In Lutheranism and general Protestantism, good works are required and urged, but wrongly relegated to the non-salvific category (in their view) of sanctification. Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the Church fathers do not separate justification and sanctification in this manner. It was a 16th century novel innovation and false teaching.

Jordan consistently assumes (falsely) — if I am interpreting him correctly — that every reference to “works of the law” is the equivalent of “good works” generally. It is not. This gets into the “New Perspective on Paul” which is a Protestant movement that has many affinities with traditional Catholic soteriology.

14:09 it’s a question of what is the human’s role in justification; what is it by which I receive the love of God in Christ, and that is faith not my love

He again refers to initial justification. We fully agree about that, as seen in the citations from Trent that I provided above.

***

Photo credit: Portrait of Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560), originator of the faith alone doctrine, (c. 1535), by Hans Holbein the Younger (c. 1497-1543) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I interact with Lutheran YouTuber Jordan Cooper’s defenses of the Protestant doctrine of faith alone: particularly the motif of love fulfilling the law (Romans 13:8-11).

“Perspicuous Apostolic Message”? (vs. Eric Svendsen)

Last updated on: April 22, 2024 at 5:22 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

[originally compiled and posted on my website on 12 August 2000]

[Eric Svendsen’s words will be in blue; an anonymous Protestant’s in green]

The following series of dialogues took place on James White’s Sola Scriptura discussion list, from 21 May to 26 June 1996 (as such they are some of my very first debates / dialogues online: I started going online in March 1996). See a similar exchange with James White that took place at the same time. Eric Svendsen was a very prominent anti-Catholic polemicist; arguably second in influence only to James White, until he suddenly completely departed from the Internet in April 2010.

*****

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,500+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (w your email address) on the sidebar to the right, 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!

***

Eric Svendsen: 30 May 1996

Dave A. wrote:

What year did contraception become a sin, Dave?
*

It never did “become” a sin, since sin is sin, in God’s eyes. God is eternal; therefore contraception has been a sin for eternity (unless, as the Anglicans would have it, God – and hence Christianity – changed His mind in 1930).

So now, Dave, you would like us to have the courage of conviction to anathematize our brothers who disagree with us on all points of dogma. And once we do that, we will have earned your respect and praise for acting upon our conviction?!
*

I’m saying have the courage to take a stand. You’re courageous enough to bash the Catholic Church with impunity, but won’t even say that your fellow Protestants are wrong on something or other?! Your fathers Luther and Calvin did it; why not you? Or is it the case, rather, that God doesn’t care about truth when it comes to baptism, the Eucharist, ecclesiology, etc.? Is Protestantism thus reduced to an Orwellian “some doctrines are more true than others”? Besides, you can disagree but still be brothers in Christ. I’m doing that in this group. My Church does it officially with regard both to the Orthodox and Protestantism. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, you know.

I take it you finally see the force of my point that John 17 does not refer to doctrinal disagreement, but to oneness in love.
*

Guess again. I say it is primarily referring to love, but also secondarily to doctrine, because Scripture doesn’t separate the two, but holds them in unity (no pun intended).

No Dave, I am not going to anathematize a brother in Christ for believing wrongly on the issue of baptism or the Lord’s Supper. I will certainly disagree with him, and point out his error.

Maybe we’re not that far apart after all, then. But you miss the fact that I was asking for James White’s answer as to what the Apostles believed on my 18 points. The original context of my challenge was for James to define his own terms. His reluctance (and everyones’) is heartening to me at least to the extent that Protestants are squeamish about their own disunity, chaos, and relativism, as evidenced by the fear of dealing with it straight-on in answering a friendly Catholic critic. One tries to avoid dilemmas that might possibly be fatal to one’s position. Understandable. But I will not cease my probing, especially as long as you guys accuse or misunderstand my Church. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

It occurs to me that it is exceedingly strange for Protestants to relegate the Eucharist to relativism and relative insignificance, when our Lord (yes, ours, despite John MacArthur’s insistence that I worship a different one) made it a point of division Himself. John 6:66 tells us of “many of his disciples” forsaking Him. Now, if the Eucharist were just minutiae on the grand scale of matters theological, why didn’t Jesus beg and plead with these people to stay?

If your view is correct, it seems reasonable that Jesus should then have said, “Hey, don’t go: this isn’t a matter which should divide us – we agree that I am God. Who cares about what happens in the central act of Christian worship!” And we know also that Jesus said “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jn 6:53). But that’s “secondary,” “non-essential”? I’m sorry, but I can’t give my assent to such an incoherent and unbiblical viewpoint. Call me obtuse if you like.

And of course, Scripture intimately relates baptism with both repentance and salvation (for the latter, see e.g., Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4, Acts 22:16, 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5). But no matter, “us Protestants value a false, pick-and-choose unity rather than biblical truth.” Or so it seems to this observer, one who has lived a committed Christian life in both worlds. Now I will give you a multiple choice test. Please mark an “x” in the appropriate boxes (Protestants can have more than one right answer, Catholics only one):

YOU…..BIBLE …..APOSTLES…….CHURCH HISTORY
Belief in the Real Presence
Belief in the Eucharist
Belief in infant, regenerative baptism

Now, for your homework tonight, I’m asking you to explain why (if you differ from either the Bible, the Apostles, or the vast majority of Christians for 2000 years), your belief diverges from that of the others. In 500 words or less. Thank you. Protestants will be graded on a scale, so that most of them will get an “A” no matter what their answers are . . .

NOTE: I want all of you Protestants out there to take this test, not just Eric. You’ve ignored my questions long enough, and it is getting downright rude! [none answered]

But love covers over a multitude of sins, it does not quickly condemn (contra the historic practice of the Roman church).
*

What do you call Lutherans or Calvinists drowning and torturing Anabaptists – a quibble among family? How do you view the multitude of capital offenses for heresy in Protestant countries in the 16th and 17th centuries (is that “coercion”?). What about the thousands of “witches” who were put to death by Protestants (the Spanish Inquisition having condemned witch hunts as mass delusion)? Need I offer any more examples? But the wicked Catholic Church and its anathemas . . . How do we regard Protestants now (however one regards our views in days past when men still cared enough for religion to fight over it)? And how do many of you regard us (e.g., James White and Phillip Johnson, and you)? A bit hypocritical of you, wouldn’t you say, Eric? You ought to spread your moral outrage around a little more – shall we say indiscriminately.

Gee, I wonder if the Catholic “old man” has its share of these? Let’s see, at one time Catholics were killing and condemning to hell all Protestants who opposed Rome’s authority, denying them salvation. Now, suddenly, we are “means of salvation.”
*

Is this not a fine example of bigoted, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Catholicism? “killing . . . all Protestants who opposed . . .”? We don’t condemn anybody to hell, not even Luther. This is not what “anathema” means, any more than it was when Paul used it. The Catholic Church doesn’t claim the authority to sentence people to hell. Last time I checked, that was God’s sole prerogative.

Who has compromised doctrine? Not I.
*

Good, then please give me your list of my 18 points, since you’re a good, “uncompromised” Protestant. That will be a wonderful start for the man on the street to ascertain apostolic and Christian truth. Real progress . . .

But if your suggestion is that I join the Catholic church for the sake of unity
*

We’re working on that. Rome wasn’t built in a day. :-)

– then, indeed, I would be compromising doctrine.
*

Certainly no more than you and yours are now! It’ll be a giant step up!

There certainly is virtue in unity of belief.
*

Now that is a true statement, provided the beliefs are true, of course.

But what you don’t seem to be grasping here is that it is no virtue to hold to uncompromised unity of belief if that belief is in error!
*

I agree 100%. Thus the question boils down to (as always): is what the Catholic Church teaches true or false? (and the same for Protestantism). But you (and James White) try to caricature my position as calling for a blind, absolute, clone-like unity (hence the Jehovah’s Witnesses comparison). Of course not, as this is clearly lunacy. My whole point in critiquing Protestant disunity is that that is clearly, unarguably against the biblical injunctions to be unified, of “one mind,” etc. Try as you may, neither you nor any Protestant can overcome the strength and validity of this objection to your position. That’s why I asked someone “what would convince you that your view is wrong: 240,000 sects?” (rather than 24,000). What does it take? How absurd and chaotic must things become before you start to question your first principles?
As the old pop song goes, “There, I’ve said it again.”

Anonymous Protestant on the List: 6 June 1996
*

Or is there a consistent double standard being played here? It seems as long as there is disagreement among Protestants, then sola Scriptura is a failure, but if there is disagreement among Catholics, there are only dissenters. The same standard you apply against the Protestant is even more so applied to you…with a 4×4. Sorry Dave, I can only see your argument as valid as long as it does not apply to you. If it is true, then your own argument condemns you.
*

I respectfully disagree. This is one where we will have to just agree to disagree. You guys don’t think my “perspicuity” argument applies to you, and us Catholics return the favor when you say liberals in our ranks cast doubt on our general position on authority/Tradition, etc. So what can you do? I’ve seen nothing to cause me to change my mind on this particular point thus far.

You place an infallible interpreter to explain an infallible authority (whichever you believe-partim-partim or material – I can never tell from one post to the next) and still end up with differing interpretations over what the infallible interpreter meant.
*

I stated that if one had a Bible on a desert isle, and that’s all he had, sure, he could be saved. But I also said that some Church or authority will be ordinarily necessary, so that, in the final analysis it is a moot point. I believe that all Catholic doctrines can be found in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly or indirectly. If that is material sufficiency, then I am in that camp. But if it means that somehow the Church and Tradition are thereby taken out of the picture as not intrinsically necessary to Christianity, then I must dissent, because I don’t see that in Scripture (I believe sola Scriptura is self-defeating, in other words). Catholics regard Scripture as central, but not exclusive, with regard to authority and Tradition. Thus, to critique sola Scriptura does not at all imply a lessening of respect for the Bible, as has been implied in this group and elsewhere.

All in all, personally I see this “partim-partim” debate as boring and irrelevant (that’s not to say that others can legitimately think differently). I think we need to determine what Tradition(s) were in fact believed by Christians through history, and whether these can be found to possess a scriptural basis, and I consider Church history as evidence of God’s hand, working to sustain and protect His Church (however that is defined) from error. I approach these things (i.e., the sola Scriptura/Tradition debate) from an historical and pragmatic perspective (and of course, biblically, as do we all), rather than more philosophically. I’m all for philosophy, but since the nature of authority is a very practical matter, I think it is better to stick to a pragmatic method in this case.

Karl Keating.
*

Ha ha ha. I meant Protestant figure, of course. In any event, we can determine what our Church teaches by looking in the Church’s official documents. That’s the point I was making.

Eric Svendsen: 26 June 1996
*

But, ironically, you have succinctly and, no doubt, inadvertently described the Roman system in your very last sentence. Admittedly then, the Roman system has just as much chaos as does Protestantism (but this theme is perhaps more appropriately covered further down the road).
*

Aaargghhhh! :-( (exercising much self-restraint). I merely make one mini-argument in reply: if this is true, how is it that people in this group assume without question that Catholics believe certain things: e.g. (just recently), a very high regard for apostolic Tradition, apostolic succession, the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, infused justification, baptismal regeneration, an ex opere operato notion of sacramentalism, papal infallibility, papal supremacy, etc.? On the other hand, there is no identifiable Protestant “position” other than C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity,” which takes in Catholic and Orthodox theology anyhow, and so is not even distinctively Protestant. About all that “orthodox” evangelical Protestants agree on is sola Scriptura and an agreement that Catholicism must be wrong (and even a strict sola Scriptura view is questionable among Anglicans and many Lutherans).

They were in conflict with what mom actually said, in spite of the leprechaun in big brothers pocket that interpreted mom’s words otherwise.
*

According to which tradition: the Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Anabaptist, Church of Christ, independent pentecostal, non-denom, Baptist, Church of God, Mennonite, Quaker, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Assembly of God, Copelandites, self-described “Bible Christian,” or some other group of your choice, from among the multiple thousands, or simply your own “biblical” view?

If Paul teaches it directly from his mouth then, yes, that teaching is authoritative. If Paul verifies someone else who also teaches the same thing then, yes, that teaching is authoritative. But this is not to say that the oral tradition of that message is authoritative.
*

Do you positively assert that such a scenario is a priori impossible? If not, what would constitute adequate proof for you?

I teach communication skills to corporations for a living. One of the exercises I love to do to illustrate the ineffectiveness of a message that has gone through many hands is this: I whisper a sentence to one of the participants in the seminar, and then have that person whisper the same message to the person next to him, and that person in turn whispers the same message to the next person, and so on until the message has made its way around the room (approx. 30 people). Then I have the last person to receive the message stand and recite it – invariably to the roaring laughter of the rest of the class who cannot believe how much the sentence has changed in the process! (try it sometime). The simple fact is, we will botch up the message every time. That, my friends, is why God chose to commit the essential teachings to writing in the first place.

Yes, I’ve heard this. But using it to shore up sola Scriptura is a classic example of the fallacy behind Protestant presuppositional objections to Tradition: they assume that (Catholic) Tradition is merely human, and therefore subject to all the foibles of that weak vessel, whereas we assert that it is guided by the Holy Spirit and hand of God, in order to preserve it from error (by means of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church).

You assert that God could produce an infallible Bible by means of fallible, sinful (mostly Jewish) men (such as David, Matthew, Peter & Paul), and confirmed in its parameters also by fallible, sinful (Jewish and Catholic) men, and translated by fallible, sinful (mostly Catholic) men, and preserved for 1500 years before Protestantism was born by fallible, sinful (mostly Catholic and therefore apostate, according to James White) men, too. We contend that God can and does likewise create and sustain an infallible Church and Tradition, which is not a whit less credible or plausible.

As I’ve stated many times, we are discussing Christianity (which requires faith and a belief in the supernatural, God’s Providence, etc.), not epistemological philosophy. Ours is a faith position, but no more than yours (I would say less so). James argues like an atheist when he tries to pretend that our view is largely irrational blind “faith in Rome,” whereas Protestantism is altogether scriptural, reasonable, and not requiring faith in any institution outside one’s own radically individualistic, subjective, existential “certainty” (perhaps also, in his case, Calvin).

One must examine premises, and their relative merits. That’s why I like to dwell on the foundations of belief-systems, knowing that if they are found weak and crumbling, the superstructure resting upon them will necessarily collapse. The two pillars of Protestantism are sola Scriptura and sola fide. Like Samson, I pushed the two pillars down, and the house of Protestantism collapsed upon my head, killing me as a Protestant, but luckily, a coherent Christian alternative existed, so I was resurrected. :-)

***

Photo credit: Eric Svendsen, from the YouTube presentation, “The Covenant According to Rome” (10-30-14).

Summary: Mini-debate with prominent anti-Catholic polemicist Eric Svendsen, about the supposedly “perspicuous” (clear) apostolic message that Protestants can’t enumerate.

Church Fathers vs. “Faith Alone”: Handy Capsule Proofs

Last updated on: April 9, 2024 at 8:59 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

*****

“Faith Alone” (sola fide in Latin) is one of the two “pillars” of the Protestant “Reformation” (along with sola Scriptura: Scripture Alone). Protestants use the term “reformation” of their origins in the 16th century because it’s their belief that they were bringing back the teachings of the early Church which the Catholic Church supposedly had corrupted or lost altogether (hence, the description of “reform”). This is standard Protestant playbook talking points.

The serious problem with this outlook, however, is that — taking these two pillars as prime examples –, both are virtually absent in the Church fathers. The universality of the rejection of both is quite striking and remarkable. I massively document many individual fathers’ views on the rule of faith in the “Bible / Tradition / Sola Scriptura . . .” section of my Fathers of the Church web page. Concerning faith alone, the late Protestant apologist Norman Geisler wrote:

[O]ne can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . . (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 502, 85, 222; my italics and bolding)

Similarly, the renowned Protestant scholar Alister McGrath stated:

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ‘sanctification’ or ‘regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .

The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. (Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115; my italics and bolding)

See fuller quotes from both Geisler and McGrath. The famous Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff exhibits more bias, but essentially concurs, as to the historical facts:

If any one expects to find in this period [100-325], or in any of the church fathers, Augustin himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, . . . he will be greatly disappointed . . . Paul’s doctrine of justification, except perhaps in Clement of Rome, who joins it with the doctrine of James, is left very much out of view, and awaits the age of the Reformation to be more thoroughly established and understood. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, 588-589)

Despite this scholarly consensus, some folks still don’t get it. The Protestant evangelical anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer wrote on 2-20-20: “The claim that nobody believed in justification through faith alone before the Reformation, or between the time of the apostles and the Reformation, is false.” Okay! As far as I know, Jason is not a scholar.

My aim in the present paper is to document in a concise summary form, some of the very best quotations in this regard from the Church fathers, that illustrate the universal consensus against “faith alone” and for the Catholic view regarding faith and works as organically connected, and infused justification (no separation of justification and sanctification). Most of these, I found myself, in laborious searches. Following each name is a link for the reader who wishes to pursue additional related statements from the same Church father.

***

Pope Clement of Rome (d. c. 101) [see more]

Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vain glory and ambition. (Epistle to the Corinthians, 35)

Ignatius of Antioch (50 – c. 110) [see more]

I also am the more encouraged, resting without anxiety in God, if indeed by means of suffering I may attain to God, so that, through your prayers, I may be found a disciple [of Christ]. (Epistle to Polycarp, ch. 7)

Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (possibly as early as 130, or as late as 180) [see more]

When you have read and carefully listened to these things, you shall know what God bestows on such as rightly love Him, being made [as you are] a paradise of delight, presenting in yourselves a tree bearing all kinds of produce and flourishing well, being adorned with various fruits. (ch. 12)

Shepherd of Hermas (c. 150) [see more]

Have a care, then, you who serve the Lord, and have Him in your heart, that you work the works of God, remembering His commandments and promises which He promised, and believe that He will bring them to pass if His commandments be observed. Instead of lands, therefore, buy afflicted souls, according as each one is able, and visit widows and orphans, and do not overlook them; and spend your wealth and all your preparations, which you received from the Lord, upon such lands and houses. For to this end did the Master make you rich, that you might perform these services unto Him; . . . work your own work, and you will be saved. (Bk. III, Similitude 1)

Polycarp (69-155) [see more]

But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise us up also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, false witness; . . . (Epistle to the Philippians, ch. 2)

Justin Martyr (100-165) [see more]

[E]ach man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions. (First Apology, ch. 12)

Theophilus (d. c. 180) [see more]

[K]eeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, . . . For as man, disobeying, drew death upon himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting. For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, . . . (To Autolycus, Bk. II, ch. 27)

Irenaeus (130-202) [see more]

[T]hose who believe God and follow His word receive that salvation which flows from Him. Those, on the other hand, who depart from Him, and despise His precepts, and by their deeds bring dishonour on Him who made them, and by their opinions blaspheme Him who nourishes them, heap up against themselves most righteous judgment. (Against Heresies, Bk. IV, 33, 15)

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215) [see more]

. . . the elect being saved by instruction, and purification, and the doing of good works. . . . For by grace we are saved: not, indeed, without good works; but we must, by being formed for what is good, acquire an inclination for it. (The Stromata, Bk. V, ch. 1)

Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220) [see more]

But even if the stimulus of her repentance proceeded from her faith, she heard her justification by faith through her repentance pronounced in the words, Your faith has saved you, by Him who had declared by Habakkuk, The just shall live by his faith. [Habakkuk 2:4] (Against Marcion, Bk. IV, ch. 18)

Hippolytus (d. c. 235) [see more]

He, in administering the righteous judgment of the Father to all, assigns to each what is righteous according to his works. . . . the justification will be seen in the awarding to each that which is just; since to those who have done well shall be assigned righteously eternal bliss, and to the lovers of iniquity shall be given eternal punishment. . . . the righteous will remember only the righteous deeds by which they reached the heavenly kingdom, . . . (Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe, 3)

Origen (c. 185 – c. 253) [see more]

So also in the race of our life we ourselves must expend labour, and bring diligence and zeal to bear; but it is from God that salvation is to be hoped for as the fruit of our labour. Otherwise, if God demand none of our labour, His commandments will appear to be superfluous. . . . And in the matter of our salvation, what is done by God is infinitely greater than what is done by ourselves . . . (De Principiis, Bk. III, ch. 1, 18)

Cyprian (210-258) [see more]

Confession is the beginning of glory, not the full desert of the crown; nor does it perfect our praise, but it initiates our dignity; and since it is written, He that endures to the end, the same shall be saved, [Matthew 10:22] whatever has been before the end is a step by which we ascend to the summit of salvation, not a terminus wherein the full result of the ascent is already gained. (Treatise 1: On the Unity of the Church, 21)

Lactantius (c. 240 – c. 320)

For this reason He has given us this present life, that we may either lose that true and eternal life by our vices, or win it by virtue. (Divine Institutes, Bk. VII, ch. 5)

Alexander of Alexandria (d. 328)

Since therefore you know, brethren beloved, that the malignant and the unbelieving are the enemies of righteousness, beware of these, embrace faith and charity, by which all the holy men who have existed from the beginning of the world to this day have attained unto salvation. And show forth the fruit of charity, not in words only, but also in deeds, that is, in all godly patience for God’s sake. (Epistles on Arianism and the Deposition of Arius, ch. 5, 2)

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-368)

Election, therefore, is not a thing of haphazard judgment. It is a distinction made by selection based on merit. Blessed, then, is he whom God elects: blessed for the reason that he is worthy of election. (On Psalm 64 [65], section 5; in William A. Jurgens, editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, three volumes [Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press], Vol. 1 [1970], 386)

Athanasius (c. 297-373)

For it is not productive of virtue, nor is it any token of goodness. For none of us is judged for what he knows not, and no one is called blessed because he hath learning and knowledge. But each one will be called to judgment in these points–whether he have kept the faith and truly observed the commandments. (Life of Antony, 33)

Basil the Great (c. 330-379)

Eternal rest awaits those who have struggled through the present life observant of the laws, not as payment owed for their works, but bestowed as a gift of the munificent God on those who have hoped in him. (On Psalm 114, no. 5; in Jurgens, ibid., Vol. 2 [1979], 22)

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-387)

[F]or 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)

Gregory Nazianzen (c. 330 – c. 390)

For our salvation is not so much a matter of words as of actions . . . (Oration 43, 68)

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 394)

Paul, joining righteousness to faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides. A soldier cannot be considered safely armored when either shield is disjoined from the other. For faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither, however, is righteous living secure in itself for salvation, if it is disjoined from faith. (Homilies on Ecclesiastes, 8; Jurgens, ibid., Vol. 2 [1979], 45-46)

Ambrose (c. 336-397) [see more]

The deserts of each one of us are suspended in the balance, which a little weight either of good works or of degenerate conduct sways this way or that; if the evil preponderate, woe is me! if the good, pardon is at hand. For no man is free from sin; but where good preponderates, the evil flies up, is overshadowed, and covered. Wherefore in the Day of judgement our works will either succour us, or will sink us into the deep, weighed down as with a millstone. For iniquity is heavy, supported as by a talent of lead; avarice is intolerable, and all pride is foul dishonesty. Wherefore exhort the people of God to trust rather in the Lord, to abound in the riches of simplicity, wherein they may walk without snare and without hindrance. (Letter II: To Constantius, a Bishop, 16; from The Letters of S. Ambrose, Oxford: 1881)

John Chrysostom (c. 345-407) [see more]

Jerome (c. 343-420)

For it is not accordant with the righteousness of God to forget good works, . . . The Apostle James also, knowing that the baptized can be tempted, and fall of their own free choice, says: “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he hath been approved, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord promised to them that love him.” . . . 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 willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal . . . It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism. . . . John the apostle, or rather the Saviour in the person of John, writes thus to the angel of the Church of Ephesus: I know your works and your toil and patience, and that you bore for my name’s sake, and hast not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you left your first love. Remember therefore from whence you are fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come to you, and will move your candlestick out of its place, unless you repent. Similarly He urges the other churches, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, to repentance, and threatens them unless they return to the former works. (Against Jovinian, Bk. II, 3)

Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428)

Paul did not say we hold because he was himself uncertain. He said it in order to counter those who concluded from this that anyone who wished to could be justified simply by willing faith. Note carefully that Paul does not say simply without the law, as if we could just perform virtue by wanting to, nor do we do the works of the law by force. We do them because we have been led to do them by Christ. (Pauline Commentary From the Greek Church; commenting on Romans 3:28; in Gerald Bray, editor, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament VI: Romans [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998], 104-105)

Augustine (354-430) [see more]

This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, because of what is said by the Lord Jesus: Without me you can do nothing. [John 15:5] 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] What is the purport of his saying, Not of works, lest any man should boast, while commending the grace of God? And then why does he afterwards, when giving a reason for using such words, say, For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works? Why, therefore, does it run, Not of works, lest any man should boast? 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. . . . as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given. But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its reward —grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God shall reward every man according to his works.(On Grace and Free Will, ch. 20; written in 436 or 427, just 3 or 4 years before he died)

John Cassian (c. 360 – c. 435)

[T]he beginning of our good will is given to us by the inspiration of the Lord, when He draws us towards the way of salvation either by His own act, or by the exhortations of some man, or by compulsion; and that the consummation of our good deeds is granted by Him in the same way: but that it is in our own power to follow up the encouragement and assistance of God with more or less zeal, and that accordingly we are rightly visited either with reward or with punishment, because we have been either careless or careful to correspond to His design and providential arrangement made for us with such kindly regard. . . . And by this testimony we can clearly see what we ought to ascribe to free will, and what to the design and daily assistance of the Lord, and that it belongs to divine grace to give us opportunities of salvation and prosperous undertakings and victory: but that it is ours to follow up the blessings which God gives us with earnestness or indifference. (Conference 3, ch. 19)

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444)

It is a true saying, that the fruit of good deeds is honourable. For those who wish to lead lives pure and undefiled as far as is possible for men, Christ will adorn with His gifts, and grant them an abundant recompense for all their saintly deeds, and make them partakers of His glory. (Commentary on Luke, v. 9:1-5; translated by R. Payne Smith, Oxford University Press, 1859)

Pope Leo the Great (c. 400-461)

[Y]ou ought all to help one another in turn, that in the kingdom of God, which is reached by right faith and good works, you may shine as the sons of light . . . (Sermon 33, 5)

Theodoret (c. 393 – c. 466)

Well-doing is for a time, but the reward is eternal . . . Paul wanted to show that there are many rewards for those who are good. (Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans; commentary on Romans 2:7; in Bray, ibid., 60)

St. Polycarp, Who Learned the Faith From an Apostle, Did Not Believe in ‘Faith Alone’ [National Catholic Register, 2-26-23]
*

Faith Alone in the Early Church Fathers? (vs. Jordan Cooper) — Includes Clement of Rome (d. c. 101) & Polycarp (d. 155) vs. Faith Alone [2-28-24]

Church Fathers & Sola Fide (vs. Jordan Cooper) Incl. St. Ignatius of Antioch vs. Faith Alone; Epistle to Diognetus; Council of Trent on Justification by Faith & Imputation; Anti-Catholicism in the Lutheran Confessions [3-6-24]

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215) vs. “Faith Alone” [3-27-24]

Theophilus of Antioch (d. c. 180) vs. “Faith Alone” [3-27-24]
*

St. Justin Martyr (100-165) vs. “Faith Alone” (Sola Fide) [4-1-24]

St. Irenaeus (130-202) vs. “Faith Alone” (Sola Fide) [4-1-24]

Shepherd of Hermas (c. 150) vs. “Faith Alone” (Sola Fide) [4-2-24]

Tertullian (d. c. 220) vs. “Faith Alone” [4-2-24]

Hippolytus (d. c. 235) vs. “Faith Alone” [4-3-24]

Origen (c. 185 – c. 253) vs. “Faith Alone” [4-3-24]

St. Cyprian (210-258) vs. “Faith Alone” (Sola Fide) [4-8-24]
*

***

Photo credit: see book and purchase information for this volume that I edited.

Summary: All of the Church fathers — as Protestant scholars themselves concede — denied the novel Protestant doctrine and “pillar” of “faith alone” or sola fide.

St. Cyprian (210-258) vs. “Faith Alone” (Sola Fide)

Last updated on: April 8, 2024 at 7:55 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

*****

. . . we do not keep the way of the Lord, nor observe the heavenly commandments given to us for our salvation. (Epistle 7, 1)

For this it is which especially pleases God; it is this wherein our works with greater deserts are successful in earning God’s good-will; this it is which alone the obedience of our faith and devotion can render to the Lord for His great and saving benefits, . . . (Epistle 76:4)

Let our light shine in good works, and glow in such wise as to lead us from the night of this world to the daylight of eternal brightness. Let us always with solicitude and caution wait for the sudden coming of the Lord, that when He shall knock, our faith may be on the watch, and receive from the Lord the reward of our vigilance. If these commands be observed, if these warnings and precepts be kept, we cannot be overtaken in slumber by the deceit of the devil; but we shall reign with Christ in His kingdom as servants that watch. (Treatise 1: On the Unity of the Church, 27)

We believe, indeed, that the merits of martyrs and the works of the righteous are of great avail with the Judge; but that will be when the day of judgment shall come; when, after the conclusion of this life and the world, His people shall stand before the tribunal of Christ. (Treatise 3: On the Lapsed, 17)

For He who will give us in the day of judgment a reward for our labours and alms, is even in this life a merciful hearer of one who comes to Him in prayer associated with good works. Thus, for instance, Cornelius the centurion, when he prayed, had a claim to be heard. For he was in the habit of doing many almsdeeds towards the people, and of ever praying to God. (Treatise 4: On the Lord’s Prayer, 32)

What Christ is, we Christians shall be, if we imitate Christ. (Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols, 15)

But, moreover, what is that providence, and how great the clemency, that by a plan of salvation it is provided for us, that more abundant care should be taken for preserving man after he is already redeemed! For when the Lord at His advent had cured those wounds which Adam had borne, and had healed the old poisons of the serpent, He gave a law to the sound man and bade him sin no more, lest a worse thing should befall the sinner. . . . the divine mercy, coming once more in aid, should open some way of securing salvation by pointing out works of justice and mercy, so that by almsgiving we may wash away whatever foulness we subsequently contract. (Treatise 8: On Works and Alms, 1)

For if Abraham believed in God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness, certainly he who gives alms according to God’s precept believes in God, and he who has the truth of faith maintains the fear of God; moreover, he who maintains the fear of God considers God in showing mercy to the poor. For he labours thus because he believes . . . that unfruitful trees, that is, unproductive men, are cut off and cast into the fire, but that the merciful are called into the kingdom. He also, in another place [cites Lk 16:11-12], calls laborious and fruitful men faithful . . . (Treatise 8: On Works and Alms, 8)

. . . that you may be able to attain to see God, by deserving well of God, both by good works and character. (Treatise 8: On Works and Alms, 14)

Let us, while there is time, take thought for our security and eternal salvation, according to the admonition of the Apostle Paul, [cites Gal 6:9-10, which exhorts us to do good works] (Treatise 8: On Works and Alms, 24)

What, dearest brethren, will be that glory of those who labour charitably — how great and high the joy when the Lord begins to number His people, and, distributing to our merits and good works the promised rewards, to give heavenly things for earthly, eternal things for temporal, great things for small; to present us to the Father, to whom He has restored us by His sanctification; to bestow upon us immortality and eternity, . . . (Treatise 8: On Works and Alms, 26)

To put on the name of Christ, and not to go in the way of Christ, what else is it but a mockery of the divine name, but a desertion of the way of salvation; since He Himself teaches and says that he shall come unto life who keeps His commandments, and that he is wise who hears and does His words; that he, moreover, is called the greatest doctor in the kingdom of heaven who thus does and teaches; . . . (Treatise 10: On Jealousy and Envy, 12)

St. Polycarp, Who Learned the Faith From an Apostle, Did Not Believe in ‘Faith Alone’ [National Catholic Register, 2-26-23]
*

Faith Alone in the Early Church Fathers? (vs. Jordan Cooper) — Includes Clement of Rome (d. c. 101) & Polycarp (d. 155) vs. Faith Alone [2-28-24]

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215) vs. “Faith Alone” [3-27-24]

Theophilus of Antioch (d. c. 180) vs. “Faith Alone” [3-27-24]
*

St. Justin Martyr (100-165) vs. “Faith Alone” (Sola Fide) [4-1-24]

St. Irenaeus (130-202) vs. “Faith Alone” (Sola Fide) [4-1-24]

Shepherd of Hermas (c. 150) vs. “Faith Alone” (Sola Fide) [4-2-24]

Tertullian (d. c. 220) vs. “Faith Alone” [4-2-24]

Hippolytus (d. c. 235) vs. “Faith Alone” [4-3-24]

Origen (c. 185 – c. 253) vs. “Faith Alone” [4-3-24]

Church Fathers vs. “Faith Alone”: Handy Capsule Proofs [4-8-24]

***

Photo credit: Russian icon of St. Cyprian [source] [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Cyprian (210-258), like all of the Church fathers (as Protestant historians tell us), denied the 16th century novel Protestant doctrine of “faith alone” or “sola fide.”