![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/09\/Augustine12.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Heresy can only be defined as the apostles and Church Fathers defined it, according to the ancient principle of apostolic succession. In a nutshell, heresy is that which has\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0been passed down from the beginning, from the apostles and our Lord Jesus. If something is novel and cannot be traced back, it is heresy, and to be utterly rejected, according to St. Paul in particular. All other definitions are ultimately circular:<\/p>\n X What is heresy? Applying this oft-stated Protestant principle, I then appeal to Protestant scholars Alister McGrath and Norman Geisler, with regard to the historical basis of\u00a0sola fide<\/i>\u00a0(faith alone and extrinsic, imputed justification), one of the pillars of the Protestant Reformation:<\/p>\n Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is\u00a0made righteous<\/i>\u00a0in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is\u00a0counted as righteous<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0pronounced to be righteous<\/i>. For Augustine, \u2018justifying righteousness\u2019 is\u00a0imparted<\/i>; for Melanchthon, it is\u00a0imputed<\/i>\u00a0in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being\u00a0declared\u00a0<\/i>righteous and the process of being\u00a0made\u00a0<\/i>righteous, designating the former \u2018justification\u2019 and the latter \u2018sanctification\u2019 or \u2018regeneration.\u2019 For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .<\/p>\n 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. . . .<\/p>\n 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\u2019s thought . . . .<\/p>\n Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process . . .\u00a0(Reformation Thought: An Introduction<\/i>, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115; emphasis in original)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This spectacularly confirms that\u00a0sola fide<\/i>\u00a0was a novelty and corruption, and that infused, intrinsic justification was the ongoing tradition, and that of St. Augustine, supposedly the great forerunner of Luther\u2019s \u201cfaith alone.\u201d Norman Geisler makes the exact same point:<\/p>\n For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one\u2019s righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection \u2014 the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of \u2018sanctification\u2019 then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of justification. Although he believed that God initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of \u2018forensic\u2019 justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . .<\/p>\n Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification. Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is\u00a0made\u00a0<\/i>righteous by God\u2019s grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically\u00a0declared<\/i>\u00a0righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). With Luther the situation changed dramatically . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . one 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! . . . . .\u00a0(Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences<\/i>, with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 502, 85, 222; emphasis in original)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Much the same demonstration can be made with regard to\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0and other Protestant distinctives. To summarize, then: the only (biblical, logical) way to determine heresy and orthodoxy is the historical criterion of apostolic succession. Any other method is circular, with no way to resolve competing claims.<\/p>\n Sola fide<\/i>\u00a0cannot be a legitimate development, because it is different in essence from infused justification. If some Reformed Protestants claim that our view is Pelagianism or a false gospel of works, etc. because of its difference from the Reformed extrinsic, forensic, external, imputed righteousness, then how can their view be said to be merely a \u201cdevelopment\u201d of ours, via Augustine and others?<\/p>\n A development cannot proceed from an entirely false view to a true one, or change in its essence. This violates the very definition of development, on any coherent theological view of what the word means. It is not simply random evolution or change, but consistent change: consistent with what has come before it, not radically divergent.<\/p>\n That would be like saying that orthodox Chalcedon trinitarianism could have \u201cdeveloped\u201d from Arianism, Sabellianism, or Monophysitism. Therefore,\u00a0sola fide<\/i>\u00a0must<\/b>\u00a0be considered as a corruption of Augustinian (and patristic) soteriology, because it is entirely novel in essential aspects, as my two Protestant citations showed.<\/p>\n St. Augustine rejected double predestination, perseverance, imputed justification, and accepted free will, sacramentalism, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence of the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the central authoritative roles of the Church and Tradition, as well as Scripture, the papacy, purgatory, penance, intercession of the saints, an exalted role of Mary, and human merit. In other words, he was a good Catholic. As if this were some amazing revelation . . . .<\/p>\n How, then, can a Reformed Protestant claim on the one hand that his views are descended from St. Augustine, yet on the other hand assert that Catholics are heretics, Pelagians, and adherents of a false, idolatrous gospel, for believing the same sort of things that St. Augustine also held? If I am a heretic and not a Christian, then neither was Augustine. If he was one, then so am I.<\/p>\n Without too much trouble, one can find Catholic distinctives in St. Augustine\u2019s classic,\u00a0The City of God<\/i>. For example, the great Doctor appears to be talking about purgatory in XX, 25-26 (\u201c. . . at the judgment those who are worthy of such purification are to be purified even by fire; and after that there will be found in all the saints no sin at all . . . \u201c). Cf. XXI, 13.<\/p>\n He clearly rejects the Lutheran\/Calvinist \u201cbondage of the will\u201d (V, 10 and XII, 7). He teaches the sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (X, 5, 20; XXI, 25), baptismal regeneration (XIII, 7; XX, 6), development of doctrine (XVI, 2), authoritative Tradition (XVIII, 38), and prayers for the dead (XX, 9; XXI, 24).<\/p>\n
\nY That which is false and wrong according to the Bible (i.e., as interpreted by Calvin\/Luther\/whomever)
\nX And where do they get their authority to state that?
\nY From God, but they would trace their beliefs to the early Fathers, particularly St. Augustine.
\nX But Catholics also trace their beliefs from St. Augustine. Who is correct?
\nY If you look at Augustine\u2019s teachings, you will find that the Reformed are his true legatees.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n