Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper<\/a>\u00a0is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular\u00a0Just & Sinner<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a\u00a0doctrinally traditional Lutheranism<\/a>, similar to the Lutheran Church \u2013 Missouri Synod). He has authored\u00a0several books<\/a>, as well as\u00a0theological articles<\/a>\u00a0in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n This is my 5th 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 \u201cReplies to Lutheran Theologian \/ Apologist Jordan Cooper\u201d section on the top of my Lutheranism web page<\/a>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n See Part One: <\/strong>Faith Alone in the Early Church Fathers? (vs. Jordan Cooper) \u2014 Includes Clement of Rome (d. c. 101) & Polycarp (d. 155) vs. Faith Alone<\/a>\u00a0[2-28-24]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n This is a response to Jordan\u2019s YouTube video, \u201cSola Fide in the Church Fathers Part 2: Ambrose (A Classic J&S Episode)\u201d<\/a> (2-24-22). Originally (I assume) this talk was published around 3-27-19.<\/p>\n 0:35 On the previous program I discussed sola fide<\/em> in the Church fathers, basically trying to interact with the common Roman Catholic\u00a0argument that sola fide<\/em> is a theological novum, so the notion of justification by faith alone . . . it\u2019s a common Roman Catholic claim that . . .\u00a0 it shows up later in history, and you can\u2019t find it in the Church fathers at all. [They say that] Luther basically invents this brand new idea. This especially shows up in a lot of popular Roman Catholic polemics online, and I\u2019ve made the claim that that\u2019s simply not the case and that we can find instances of sola fide<\/em> or various Protestant aspects of justification in the Church fathers.<\/span><\/p>\n As I noted last time, this claim about the absence profound of sola fide<\/em> is by no means confined to \u201cRoman Catholic polemicists.\u201d<\/span> In my previous critique I cited three well-known Protestant scholars, who all expressed basically the same thing (and they can\u2019t be accused of Catholic bias). Alister McGrath, author of \u00a0<\/span>Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification<\/em><\/a> (1986; 4th ed., 2020) and similar books such as<\/span>\u00a0Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought<\/em><\/a> (3rd ed., 2022) and <\/span>The Nature of Christian Doctrine: Its Origins, Development, and Function<\/span><\/a><\/em> (2024), stated that sola fide<\/em>, as newly formulated \u2014 not by Luther but by his successor, Philip Melanchthon \u2013, was \u201ca complete break<\/em> with the teaching of the church up to that point.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s his informed scholarly opinion. He knows far more than I ever will about the subject. I\u2019m simply repeating and agreeing with his judgment, based on his status and everything I\u2019ve seen myself along these lines, over 33 years of Catholic apologetics research. He agrees<\/em> with the break, as a good Protestant, but he doesn\u2019t try to deny that it was<\/em>, historically speaking, a break<\/em>. He<\/em> was the one, incidentally, who \u2014 three times \u2014 called sola fide<\/em> a \u201ctheological novum\u201d (in the 2nd edition of Iustitia Dei<\/em><\/a> in 1998, pp. 180, 184, 187<\/a>)\u00a0 <\/span>I also cited Philip Schaff, author of the multi-volume History of the Christian Church<\/em> and editor of the famous 38-volume set of the Church fathers (that I regularly cite from, since it is online now<\/a>).<\/p>\n I almost bought that set in hardcover so many times over the last 25 years! Schaff stated that \u201cIf 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.\u201d Jordan Cooper disagrees with these three scholars (Norman Geisler was the third) as to the history. I don\u2019t think he proved at all that Clement of Rome or Polycarp believed in sola fide<\/em>, in his previous attempt<\/a> (see my reply<\/a>), and we will now examine his argument that St. Ambrose was supposedly a good \u201cproto-Protestant\u201d in soteriological matters too.<\/p>\n 3:21 It\u2019s not good to just take isolated statements of fathers apart from their whole body of work.<\/span><\/p>\n I heartily agree! I just as strongly disagree that supposedly only Catholic and Orthodox ever do this. Protestant polemicists do quite a bit too. I know; I\u2019ve repeatedly interacted online with these sorts of effort since 1997, and one can read all those exchanges on my extensive Fathers of the Church web page<\/a>.<\/p>\n 7:56 The first of those\u00a0fathers that I want to look at is St. Ambrose, and I just want to go through and examine some of the quotes that you find in his writings.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m delighted to join him on this journey. Jordan agrees with me that we need to look at an author\u2019s entire corpus, or at least as many books as we can access (I have limited resources to buy rare books with; so thank the Lord for the thousands of online books!).<\/p>\n 8:26 Ambrose is actually cited in the Augsburg Confession as an early testament to this notion of justification by faith alone . . . I<\/span> think that Ambrose in the vast scope of his writings clearly at least in some places teaches something very much like that.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Interesting.<\/p>\n 9:25 In his treatise on Jacob and the Happy Life<\/em> he says \u201cdon\u2019t you know that the guilt of Adam and Eve sold you into servitude? Don\u2019t you know that Christ did not buy you but bought you back?\u201d Those kinds of statements are all over the place, that . . . Adam\u2019s guilt actually brings us into slavery and brings us death. There is an emphasis on guilt especially coming from Adam . . . <\/span><\/p>\n For a fuller quotation of this work, On Jacob and the Happy Life,<\/i> see Jordan\u2019s article, <\/span><\/span>\u201cSt. Ambrose On Law And Gospel\u201d<\/a> (Just and Sinner<\/em>, 6-3-14).<\/span><\/p>\n The Council of Trent stated in its Decree Concerning Original Sin<\/em><\/a> in its Session 5 on June 17, 1546, four months after Luther\u2019s death, in section 2, that \u201cthis sin of Adam\u201d was \u201ctaken away\u201d by \u201cthe merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption\u201d and that\u00a0 this was \u201capplied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism.\u201d<\/p>\n So why does Jordan bring up this particular thing in the context of discussing sola fide<\/em>? It\u2019s because Lutherans and the early Protestants generally, erroneously believed that concupiscence (desire<\/em> to or tendency towards sin) was itself<\/em> a sin and a remnant of the guilt that we inherited from Adam. Trent condemned this opinion in section 5 of the same decree:<\/p>\n If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only raised, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jordan provides an extended argument from a treatise by Ambrose that I can\u2019t access, in which the Church father asserts that concupiscence is itself sin. Jordan then insinuates that Ambrose held to one tenet of the many involved in the \u201cReformation\u201d belief in sola fide<\/em> (more to do with the nature and results of original sin than with justification per se). If<\/em> he is correct in his assessment (but maybe he isn\u2019t<\/em>; see more on this below), then Catholics would say that Ambrose got this teaching wrong<\/em>. The Catholic Church followed St. Augustine in this respect:<\/p>\n Chapter 25 [XXIII.]\u2014 Concupiscence in the Regenerate Without Consent is Not Sin; In What Sense Concupiscence is Called Sin.<\/strong><\/p>\n Now this concupiscence, this law of\u00a0sin\u00a0which dwells in our members, to which the law of righteousness forbids allegiance, saying in the words of the apostle,\u00a0 He states again in chapter 27: \u201ccarnal concupiscence . . . is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate . . .\u201d And again in chapter 28: \u201cCarnal concupiscence is remitted, indeed, in\u00a0baptism; not so that it is put out of\u00a0existence, but so that it is not to be imputed for\u00a0sin.\u201d And in chapter 29: \u201cIn the case, then, of those\u00a0persons\u00a0who are born again in\u00a0Christ, when they receive an entire remission of all their\u00a0sins, it is of course necessary that the guilt also of the still indwelling concupiscence should be remitted, in order that (as I said) it should not be imputed to them for\u00a0sin.\u201d Then he provides a thoroughly Catholic interpretation of Romans 7 and 8:<\/p>\n Chapter 36.\u2014 Even Now While We Still Have Concupiscence We May Be Safe in Christ.<\/strong><\/p>\n But the apostle pursues the subject, and says,\u00a0 If<\/em> Jordan\u2019s take of St. Ambrose\u2019s view is correct, Lutheranism followed his rather than St. Augustine\u2019s view with regard to the nature of concupiscence). In any event, this is not all<\/em> that is involved in the discussion of \u201cfaith alone.\u201d It\u2019s only indirectly or partially related, so that I don\u2019t think it\u2019s accurate to say that \u201cSt. Ambrose held to justification by faith alone\u201d on the basis of this single (suggested) consideration. One\u2019s opinion on the nature of concupiscence simply isn\u2019t the equivalent<\/em> of \u201cjustification by faith alone.\u201d<\/p>\n But did Ambrose really hold<\/em> this view (never forsaking it)? Anglican patristic scholar J. N. D. Kelly suggests that he either changed his mind or contradicted himself, as to the presence of guilt from original sin after baptism. Kelly writes:<\/p>\n The second of Ambrose\u2019s texts cited above [On the Death of Satyrus<\/em>, Book II, 6<\/a>] suggests that the race is infected with Adam\u2019s actual guilt. His more general doctrine, however, is that, while the corrupting force of sin is transmitted, the guilt attaches to Adam himself, not to us. . . . But our personal (propria<\/em>) sins are to be contrasted with those we inherit (haereditaria<\/em>); baptism removes the former, but the rite of washing of feet the latter. (Early Christian Doctrines<\/em>, San Francisco: Harper, revised edition of 1978, 354-355)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The (perhaps surprising) foot-washing element was expressed by Ambrose in his treatise,\u00a0On the Mysteries<\/em><\/a><\/span> (ch. 6, 32):<\/span><\/p>\n Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had\u00a0sin\u00a0by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to\u00a0sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary\u00a0sins\u00a0might be done away, for our own\u00a0sins\u00a0are remitted through\u00a0baptism.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Kelly continues:<\/span><\/p>\n This hereditary sin, he argues elsewhere [Enarr. in ps<\/em>. 48. 9], is a wound which makes us stumble, but need cause us no anxiety at the day of judgment; we shall only be punished then for our personal sins. . . . It is clear that he envisages the inherited corruption as a congenital propensity to sin (the phrase he uses is lubricum delinquendi<\/em>) rather than as a positive guilt. (Ibid<\/em>., 355)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n And this is identical to Catholic teaching on concupiscence. In Jordan\u2019s citation of Ambrose\u2019s book, <\/span>On Jacob and the Happy Life<\/i>, in his related article<\/a>, he cites him as stating, \u201cI became aware that concupiscence was sin,\u201d in the midst of an apparent extended citation of St. Paul in Romans 7. He cites it again at 15:35 in his video. As far as I can tell, Ambrose might have been citing or reflecting Romans 7:8, which in KJV reads, \u201cBut sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence<\/em>. For without the law sin was dead.\u201d Jordan said:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 16:05 He says even the desire for sin is itself sin, and this is his interpretation of a passage like Romans 7, where Paul speaks about his understanding his knowledge of sin and what sin is. . . . at the time of the Reformation, Martin Luther claimed concupiscence was sin. The Roman church said no, the desire for sin is not itself sin; it\u2019s only the actual act that flows out of that, that is willing, that is sin, and Martin Luther had a much broader understanding of what constitutes sin and the sin nature than Rome did. . . . there are\u00a0a lot of hints here that Ambrose would take the position that Luther does, that even the desire for sin itself is sin.<\/span><\/p>\n The word concupiscence<\/em>\u00a0appears three times<\/a> in the NT in the KJV. It doesn\u2019t appear at all in the RSV New Testament, which translates Romans 7:8 as \u201cBut sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness<\/em>. Apart from the law sin lies dead.\u201d The Greek word is epithumia<\/em> (Strong\u2019s word #1939<\/a>: see its use and translation in English Bibles). But <\/span><\/span>Jordan himself also wrote about St. Ambrose:<\/span> \u201ca lot of his interpretations are a little strange and he isn\u2019t always consistent or on track with what the [biblical] text actually says; he often goes on tangents about whatever he\u00a0really feels like teaching.\u201d<\/span> (13:02). Maybe so in the above instance . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If St. Ambrose denied what is the Catholic teaching on concupiscence, expressed by St. Augustine and the Council of Trent, he only did so in some but not all of his writing, and\/or contradicted himself, or else thought twice about his original position and (from a Catholic perspective) corrected it. <\/span><\/p>\n On a web page<\/a> from the Lutheran site, Fourth Century Christianity<\/em>, that provides the \u201capproximate chronological order\u201d of Ambrose\u2019s writings, we find that On Jacob and the Happy Life<\/i>, was written in 386-388. On the Death of Satyrus<\/em> dates from 379. On the Mysteries<\/em> is from c. 387. Explanations of Twelve Psalms of David<\/em>, cited by Kelly, where Ambrose expresses Catholic views, is the last dated work on this list; described as \u201cLater career to death (unfinished).\u201d So it looks like Ambrose held a more \u201cproto-Protestant\u201d view earlier on (379), then perhaps wavered or was unsure (386-388), and eventually settled on the Catholic view (by the time of his death in 397). The position Kelly describes is the one he held at the end of his life. This is what we can learn by examining the matter more closely.<\/span><\/p>\n Jordan continues on, up to the 36 minute mark, talking about this one work, On Jacob and the Happy Life<\/i>, which doesn\u2019t appear to be online, so I can\u2019t analyze contextual elements or the entire work. Then he moves on to a \u201ctreatise on Joseph\u201d<\/span> (36:12) which is also \u2014 far as I can tell \u2014\u00a0 unavailable online. And he discusses matters concerning our redemption and justification through Christ\u2019s death on the cross, which likely are no different from what Catholics believe (though many Lutherans wrongly think<\/em> that we are different), and only indirectly related, at best, to the topic of justification by faith alone.<\/span><\/p>\n The latter concept primarily has to do with the issue of the relation of faith and works, and whether sanctification is a fundamentally different category from justification: under which non-salvific works are categorized (in a way that the Bible never does). I waited for Jordan to get to those central disputes, as I went through his tape, but it turns out that he never did.<\/span><\/p>\n 38:48 Saint Ambrose has a stronger view of original sin than a lot of the other church\u00a0fathers do . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Or maybe it turned out that by the end of his life he didn\u2019t<\/em>, which was what my citation of J. N. D. Kelly was related to. It looks to me that St. Ambrose, in the final analysis, did not<\/em> hold to total depravity or to the notion of a \u201csin nature.\u201d So Kelly says about his fully developed view (see above):<\/span> \u201cIt is clear that he envisages the inherited corruption as a congenital propensity to sin.\u201d That\u2019s what Catholics say: concupiscence.<\/span><\/p>\n Then he goes onto a discussion of Eastern Orthodoxy. He never even discusses the central question of faith and works, in a video entitled, \u201cSola Fide in the Church Fathers Part 2: Ambrose.\u201d<\/a> I think it\u2019s a misnomer! He talked only about original sin and concupiscence, from basically just one work, and even then, arguably proved little or nothing, even about that<\/em> specific topic, in light\u00a0 of Kelly\u2019s conclusions on the general matter. Jordan virtually admitted this himself:<\/p>\n 41:32 Oh my gosh, I didn\u2019t get through anything that I wanted to. I went through one book of Ambrose and just grabbed quotes. I know I\u2019m going really slow through this, but maybe this is what we need to do to show that we can do more than just quote mining\u00a0from various books.<\/span><\/p>\n What he derisively calls merely \u201cquote mining\u201d<\/span> is in fact what is necessary<\/em> to do: locate relevant quotations from a father in order to determine his overall teaching on a given theological matter. This is precisely what we do in systematic theology, pertaining to Bible quotes. We collect relevant ones on a topic (say, original sin) and go from there, to determine what the Bible teaches about it. The more context the better (I\u2019m all for that). Jordan is concerned about context, as he should be. I am, too, having seen what my Protestant debate opponents have too often done with context, regarding both the Bible and the fathers. But Jordan insinuates that Catholics (especially popular so-called \u201cpolemicists\u201d like me) have a strong tendency to collect patristic quotes that are highly selective and out-of-context, etc. Some do, no doubt, and some don\u2019t. Like most things, it\u2019s a mixed bag and we can only examine what each individual writer does.<\/p>\n 41:48 I do want to say for someone who\u2019s listening to this and is Roman Catholic, I know the immediate response, especially for someone who has the volume is that, well, Ambrose also . . .\u00a0 says\u00a0some things that may not appear as Lutheran or Protestant as the statements you read and that\u2019s true . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Wouldn\u2019t it be only fair and thorough to examine those as well<\/em>, rather than only<\/em> the \u201cLutheran\u201d-sounding ones? I have dealt with these highly selective citations in depth in this reply. Jordan needs to do the same with the more \u201cCatholic\u201d statements of Ambrose. But he winds up \u2014 nothing personal! \u2014 doing largely the same thing that he claims here and in other videos, that Catholics and Orthodox do: pick out only<\/em> portions from the fathers or one father that seem to support their case and ignore ones that don\u2019t<\/em> appear to do so.<\/p>\n St. Ambrose thinks that works indeed play a role in determining whether we are saved or not:<\/p>\n 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<\/em>. . . . 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; from The Letters of S. Ambrose<\/em>, Oxford: 1881; my italics)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This entirely lines up with biblical accounts of the Day of Judgment. I\u2019ve found fifty biblical passages<\/a>, all<\/em><\/strong> of which make works \u2014 not\u00a0 antithetical to faith \u2014 extremely important as to salvation (only one mentioned faith alongside works). This is clearly contrary to justification by faith alone, in which we stand before God when being judged in the end and can or will say, \u201call my sins were covered by Christ\u2019s imputed justification, so I\u2019m saved; works have nothing<\/em> to do with it!\u201d<\/p>\n But Ambrose, who had a very different outlook, highlights works, works, works at the judgment. Why<\/em>? It\u2019s because it\u2019s entirely biblical<\/em>, especially regarding the Last Judgment, as I showed. Ambrose simply mirrors an overwhelming teaching of Holy Scripture. He makes the same point in an even more direct and undeniable way elsewhere (that couldn\u2019t be more<\/em> contrary to faith alone<\/em> than it is):<\/p>\n If thou clothe the naked, thou clothest thyself with righteousness; if thou bring the stranger under thy roof, if thou support the needy, he procures for thee the friendship of the saints and eternal habitations<\/em>. That is no small recompense. Thou sowest earthly things and<\/em> receivest heavenly<\/em>. . . . Clearly blessed is he from whose house a poor man has never gone with empty hand. Nor again is any one more blessed than he who is sensible of the needs of the poor, and the hardships of the weak and helpless. In the day of judgment he will receive salvation from the Lord<\/em>, Whom he will have as his debtor for the mercy he has shown. (On the Duties of the Clergy<\/em>, Book I, 11, 39<\/a>; my italics)<\/p>\n But the sacred Scriptures say that eternal life<\/em> rests on<\/em> a knowledge of divine things and on the fruit of good works<\/em>. The Gospel bears witness to both these statements. For the Lord Jesus spoke thus of\u00a0knowledge:\u00a0 He has further also in the same psalm stated of good works<\/em>, that they gain for an upright man the gift of\u00a0eternal\u00a0life<\/em>. He speaks thus:\u00a0 In the faith alone<\/em> view, such works are considered, in the end, optional, as to salvation. For Ambrose (and for Jesus, too, as we see above), they literally help bring about salvation<\/em>\u00a0 (a direct relation). This is the Catholic view whereby sanctification is not separated from justification; nor works from faith. It\u2019s not<\/em> works-salvation (Pelagianism). It\u2019s a centrality of works that necessarily flow from grace-produced and grace-enabled faith and justification, per the Bible (again, see my fifty proofs above). Ambrose refuses to separate works from faith, or vice versa:<\/p>\n Faith, then, has <\/em>[the promise of]\u00a0eternal\u00a0life, for it is a good foundation. Good works, too, have the same<\/em>, for an upright man is tested by his words and acts. For if a man is always busy talking and yet is slow to act, he shows by his acts how worthless his\u00a0knowledge\u00a0is: besides it is much worse to\u00a0know\u00a0what one ought to do, and yet not to do what one has learned should be done. On the other hand, to be active in good works and unfaithful at heart is as idle as though one wanted to raise a beautiful and lofty dome upon a bad foundation. The higher one builds, the greater is the fall; for without the protection of\u00a0faith\u00a0good works cannot stand<\/em>. A treacherous anchorage in a harbour perforates a ship, and a sandy bottom quickly gives way and cannot bear the weight of the building placed upon it. There then will be found the fullness of reward, where the\u00a0virtues\u00a0are perfect, and where there is a reasonable agreement between words and acts. (<\/a>Ibid<\/em>., ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2024\/02\/Ambrose-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLet not\u00a0sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, that you should\u00a0obey\u00a0it in the\u00a0lusts\u00a0thereof; neither yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto\u00a0sin:<\/q>\u00a0Romans\u00a06:12-13<\/span>\u00a0\u2014 this concupiscence, I say, which is cleansed only by the sacrament of regeneration, does undoubtedly, by means of natural birth, pass on the bond of\u00a0sin\u00a0to a man\u2019s posterity, unless they are themselves loosed from it by regeneration. In the case, however, of the regenerate, concupiscence is not itself\u00a0sin\u00a0any longer, whenever they do not consent to it for illicit works, and when the members are not applied by the presiding mind to perpetrate such\u00a0deeds. So that, if what is enjoined in one passage,\u00a0
You shall not\u00a0covet,<\/q>\u00a0is not kept, that at any rate is observed which is commanded in another place,\u00a0
You shall not go after your concupiscences.<\/q> [Sirach 18:30]<\/span>\u00a0Inasmuch, however, as by a certain manner of speech it is called\u00a0sin, since it arose from\u00a0sin, and, when it has the upper hand, produces\u00a0sin, the guilt of it prevails in the natural man; but this guilt, by Christ\u2019s\u00a0grace\u00a0through the remission of all\u00a0sins, is not suffered to prevail in the regenerate man, if he does not yield\u00a0obedience\u00a0to it whenever it urges him to the commission of\u00a0evil. As arising from\u00a0sin, it is, I say, called\u00a0sin, although in the regenerate it is not actually\u00a0sin; and it has this designation applied to it, just as speech which the tongue produces is itself called\u00a0
\u00a0tongue<\/em>;<\/q>\u00a0and just as the word\u00a0
\u00a0hand<\/em><\/q>\u00a0is used in the sense of writing, which the hand produces. In the same way concupiscence is called\u00a0sin, as producing\u00a0sin\u00a0when it conquers the will: so to cold and frost the epithet\u00a0
\u00a0sluggish<\/em><\/q> is given; not as arising from, but as productive of, sluggishness; benumbing us, in fact. (On Marriage and Concupiscence<\/em><\/a>, Book I, ch. 25)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So then with the mind I myself serve the law of\u00a0God, but with the flesh the law of\u00a0sin;<\/q> [Romans 7:25]<\/span>\u00a0which must be thus understood:\u00a0
With my mind I serve the law of\u00a0God,<\/q>\u00a0by refusing my consent to the law of\u00a0sin;\u00a0
with my flesh, however,<\/q>\u00a0I serve\u00a0
the law of\u00a0sin,<\/q>\u00a0by having the desires of\u00a0sin, from which I am not yet entirely freed, although I yield them no assent. Then let us observe carefully what he has said after all the above:\u00a0
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in\u00a0Christ Jesus.<\/q> [Romans 8:1]<\/span>\u00a0Even\u00a0now<\/em>, says he, when the law in my members keeps up its warfare against the law of my\u00a0mind, and retains in captivity somewhat in the body of this death, there is no condemnation to them which are in\u00a0Christ Jesus. And listen why:\u00a0
For the law of the spirit of life in\u00a0Christ Jesus,<\/q>\u00a0says he,\u00a0
has made me free from the law of\u00a0sin\u00a0and death.<\/q> [Romans 8:2]<\/span>\u00a0How made me free, except by abolishing its sentence of guilt by the remission of all my\u00a0sins; so that, though it still remains, only daily lessening more and more, it is nevertheless not imputed to me as\u00a0sin?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This is\u00a0eternal\u00a0life, to\u00a0know\u00a0You, the only\u00a0true\u00a0God, and\u00a0Jesus Christ\u00a0Whom You have sent.<\/q> [John 17:3]<\/span>\u00a0About works<\/em> He gives this answer:\u00a0
Every one that has forsaken house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My Name\u2019s sake, shall receive an hundred-fold, and shall inherit everlasting life<\/em>.<\/q> [Matthew 19:29] <\/span><\/p>\n
Blessed is the man that shows pity and lends, he will guide his affairs with discretion, surely he shall not be moved for ever, the righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance.<\/q>\u00a0And further:\u00a0
He has dispersed, he has given to the\u00a0poor, his\u00a0justice endures forever.<\/q> (Ibid<\/em>., Book II, 2, 5 and 6<\/a>; my italics; Psalm 37:28 states: \u201che will not forsake his saints. The righteous shall be preserved for ever\u201d: RSV)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n