![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2024\/11\/IgnatiusOfAntioch.jpg\")
<\/a>This is a reply to the video, Trent Horn is WRONG about Sola Fide! [Responsio #5]<\/a> (11-26-23), posted at the Scholastic Lutherans<\/em><\/a> YouTube channel. Words of the three participants will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n 37:26 what\u2019s going on in a lot of these fathers [is] that most of the times when the fathers are talking about . . . things that look like works contribute to your justification, usually what\u2019s going on is, 1) they\u2019re just talking about how committing mortal sin destroys faith, 2) they\u2019re talking about how receiving the sacraments saves or how hearing the word or whatever saves, or 3) they\u2019re talking about good works meriting rewards in heaven: perhaps different levels of reward. All three of those are compatible with the Lutheran\u00a0view . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cPlease Hit \u2018Subscribe\u2019\u201d!<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,900+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, \u201cSign Me Up!\u201d: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a\u00a0YouTube<\/em>\u00a0channel.\u00a0My blog was rated #1<\/a>\u00a0for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the\u00a0YouTube<\/em>\u00a0channel,\u00a0Catholic Bible Highlights<\/em><\/a>. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter \/ X and purchasing\u00a0one or more of my 55 books<\/a>.\u00a0All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Then he writes, \u201cNow, this work is both God\u2019s and yours, when you shall have completed it to His glory. For I trust that, through grace, you are prepared for every good work pertaining to God.\u201d Here he expresses the paradoxical biblical notion that our good works, enabled by God\u2019s grace and done in faith, are at the same time God\u2019s works, too. This means they are meritorious: examples of what St. Augustine calls \u201cGod crowning His own gifts.\u201d This reflects four statements from St. Paul:<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 3:10<\/strong> (RSV) According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:10\u00a0<\/strong>But by the grace of God\u00a0I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the\u00a0grace of God\u00a0which is with me.<\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 1:12<\/strong>\u00a0For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience that we have behaved in the world, and still more toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God.<\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 6:1<\/strong>\u00a0Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. (in 6:7 Paul said that he did various things by \u201cthe power of God\u201d)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In his\u00a0Epistle to the Smyrnaeans<\/a>, Ignatius couples \u201cfaith and love\u201d three times (Greeting, chapters 6, 13), and he writes:<\/p>\n Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the\u00a0glorious\u00a0angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they\u00a0believe\u00a0not in the blood of\u00a0Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation.\u00a0 He places faith and works together; directly reflecting the words of Jesus at the Last Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46, and when he is commenting on grace he immediately brings up various good works. He refers to grace, faith, love, and good works, all in the same context, which is\u00a0what St. Paul habitually does<\/a>. Again, in his\u00a0Epistle to the Trallians<\/a>, he makes similar connections: \u201cWherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be renewed in\u00a0faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in\u00a0love, that is the blood of\u00a0Jesus Christ\u201d (ch. 8). In his\u00a0Epistle to the Magnesians<\/a>, he couples \u201cfaith and love\u201d three times (chapters 1, 6, 13). In his\u00a0Epistle to the Ephesians<\/a>, he again uses the phrase \u201cfaith and love\u201d twice (chapters 1, 14). And he associates faith and works:<\/p>\n . . . your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the\u00a0habit\u00a0of righteousness, according to the\u00a0faith\u00a0and\u00a0love\u00a0in\u00a0Jesus Christ our Saviour. (1)<\/p>\n For it was needful for me to have been stirred up by you in\u00a0faith, exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. (3)<\/p>\n . . . faith\u00a0cannot do the works of unbelief, nor unbelief the works of\u00a0faith. (8)<\/p>\n . . . making use of the Holy Spirit\u00a0as a rope, while your\u00a0faith\u00a0was the means by which you ascended, and your\u00a0love\u00a0the way which led up to\u00a0God. You, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travellers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of\u00a0holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of\u00a0Jesus Christ, . . . (9)<\/p>\n None of these things is hid from you, if you perfectly possess that\u00a0faith\u00a0and\u00a0love\u00a0towards\u00a0Christ Jesus which are the beginning and the end of life. For the beginning is\u00a0faith, and the end is\u00a0love . . . The tree is made manifest by its fruit; so those that profess themselves to be Christians\u00a0shall be recognised by their conduct. For there is not now a demand for mere profession, but that a man be found continuing in the power of\u00a0faith\u00a0to the end.\u00a0(14)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This simply isn\u2019t faith alone<\/em>, folks; no way, no how. Then they move on to the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus:<\/p>\n 49:33 ultimately why it\u2019s so impressive is it seems to teach . . . [that] he himself took on him the burden of our iniquities; he gave his son as a ransom for us: \u201cthe Holy One for transgressors; the blameless One for the wicked; the righteous one for the unrighteous; the Incorruptible one for the corruptible, so on so forth, for what other thing was capable of covering our sins than his righteousness. By what other one was it possible that we the wicked and ungodly should be justified than by the only son of God? Oh sweet exchange oh and searchable operations oh benefits surpassing all expectations that the wickedness of many shall be head hid in a single righteous one and that the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors . . . \u201d Pretty clearly consistent with what Protestants believe and a lot harder, I think, to square with Roman Catholicism because this righteousness is found in another.\u00a0 . . . the language of imputation here . . . these are like the exact same categories Martin Luther would pick up 1,400 or so years later . . .<\/span> As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various\u00a0lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our\u00a0sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a\u00a0mind\u00a0conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of\u00a0God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the\u00a0kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our\u00a0wickedness\u00a0had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which\u00a0God\u00a0had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one\u00a0love\u00a0of\u00a0God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with\u00a0hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the\u00a0holy\u00a0One for transgressors, the blameless One for the\u00a0wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the\u00a0immortal\u00a0One for those who are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our\u00a0sins\u00a0than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the\u00a0wicked\u00a0and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only\u00a0Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the\u00a0wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Saviour who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food. (ch. 9; complete)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is discussing initial justification. There is no disagreement here. This is referring to an imputation of righteousness to the believer that Catholics can agree with, per the explanations of former Presbyterian minister and professor Kenneth Howell:<\/p>\n I am puzzled why anyone would say that extrinsic righteousness might be excluded by Trent. The only righteousness that justifies is Christ\u2019s. But Catholic theology teaches that what is Christ\u2019s becomes ours by grace. In fact Canon 10 anathematizes anyone who denies that we can be justified without Christ\u2019s righteousness or anyone who says that we are formally justified by that righteousness alone. . . .\u00a0Canon 10 says that Christ\u2019s righteousness is both necessary and not limited to imputation i.e. formally. So, imputation is not excluded but only said to be not sufficient.\u00a0With regard to imputation, if Trent indeed excludes it, I am ready to reject it. But the wording of the decrees does not seem to me to require this. . . .<\/p>\n The Protestant doctrine, it seems to me, has at least two sides. Imputation is the declaration of forgiveness on God\u2019s part because of Christ\u2019s work but it is also a legal fiction that has nothing immediately to do with real (subjective) state of the penitent. Now I think the declaration side of imputation is acceptable to Trent but not the legal fiction side. The difference between the Tridentine and the Reformation views, in addition to many other aspects, is that in the latter view God only sees us as righteous while in the former, Christ confers righteousness upon (and in) us. . . .<\/p>\n What is wrong with the Reformation view then? It is the\u00a0sola<\/em>\u00a0part. Faith is essential but not\u00a0sola fide<\/em>. Remission of sins is essential but not\u00a0sola remissione<\/em>. Imputation via absolution is essential but not\u00a0sola imputatione<\/em>. I remember well how this hit me one day in my journey. So much of Protestantism represents a reductionism of the Catholic faith. The Protestants added their qualifiers (sola<\/em>) and thereby threw out the fullness of faith. [Trent Doesn\u2019t Utterly Exclude Imputation<\/a>, July 1996]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See also my related articles:<\/p>\n Initial Justification & \u201cFaith Alone\u201d: Harmonious?<\/a>\u00a0[5-3-04]<\/p>\n Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine<\/a>\u00a0[1-7-10]<\/p>\n But as soon as initial justification occurs, God works together with the believer to make it a real<\/em>, day-by-day righteousness (not merely a declared or proclaimed righteousness that in fact is not actual righteousness). That\u2019s where the two sides differ, but not on the above. Faith alone without love won\u2019t cut it. Nothing whatsoever in this work contradicts Catholic soteriology. This epistle states, \u201cFor what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness?\u201d Precisely! The Council of Trent in agreement stated in its Decree on Justification<\/em> (5): \u201cthe beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called . . .\u201d<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n*
\nMaybe not, or maybe so. But for whatever it\u2019s worth, here is my<\/em> response:<\/div>\nHe that is able to receive it, let him receive it.<\/q>\u00a0Matthew\u00a019:12<\/span>\u00a0Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is\u00a0faith\u00a0and\u00a0love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the\u00a0grace\u00a0of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the\u00a0will\u00a0of\u00a0God. They have no regard for\u00a0love; no care for the\u00a0widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. (6)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n*
\nWhen the fathers talk about good works being rewarded and that we will gain recompenses . . . only if you presuppose the Roman understanding that the recompense and the reward is an increase of our justice before God, only then will these quotations provide any form of support for the Roman Catholic understanding. We Lutherans confess in all of our confessions that God will reward good works done done here on earth that there will be heavenly gifts and rewards for us for the good works we do, but these things have nothing to do with our standing before God, which hinges on Christ\u2019s righteousness, not our works.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n*<\/div>\n
\n*<\/div>\n