![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2026\/04\/Cover-555-x-835.jpg\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cFaith Alone\u201d (sola fide<\/em> in Latin) is, as Protestants say \u2014 one of the two \u201cpillars\u201d of the Protestant \u201cReformation\u201d (along with sola Scriptura:\u00a0<\/em>Scripture Alone). Protestants use the term \u201creformation\u201d to describe their origins in the 16th century because it\u2019s their belief that they were bringing back the teachings of the early Church which the Catholic Church supposedly had greatly corrupted (hence, the description of \u201creform\u201d). The serious problem with this outlook, however, is that these two \u201cpillars\u201d are virtually absent<\/em> in the Church fathers. For massive documentation of the absence of sola Scriptura<\/em>, see my Fathers of the Church<\/em><\/a> web page, section VII.<\/p>\n The universality of the rejection of both is quite striking and remarkable. No one need take my word alone for that. Protestant scholars fully concur. For example, the famous Church historian and patristics expert Philip Schaff<\/a> (1819-1893), referring to the time period of\u00a0 100-325 AD, is honest \u2014 as he always is \u2014 about the facts, even though he himself disagrees with the patristic doctrines he is discussing:<\/p>\n If any one expects to find in this period, or in any of the church fathers, Augustin[e]<\/span>\u00a0himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith\u00a0alone<\/i>, . . .\u00a0 he will be greatly disappointed. . . . Paul\u2019s doctrine of justification, . . . is left very much out of view, and awaits the age of the Reformation to be more thoroughly established and understood. The fathers lay chief stress on sanctification and good works, and show the already existing germs of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the meritoriousness and even the supererogatory meritoriousness of Christian virtue. It was left to modern evangelical theology to develop more fully the doctrines of soteriology and subjective Christianity. (History of the Christian Church<\/em><\/a>, Vol. 2, 3rd edition, 1890, \u00a7 154. Other Doctrines.<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Writing about Luther and the 16th century, Schaff observed similarly:<\/p>\n The Pauline doctrine of justification as set forth in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, had never before been clearly and fully understood, not even by Augustin and Bernard, who confound justification with sanctification.<\/sup> (History of the Christian Church<\/em>, Vol. 7, \u00a7 23. \u201cThe Victory of Justifying Faith\u201d<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The late prominent Protestant apologist Norman Geisler<\/a> (1932-2019) strikingly extended this state of affairs all the way from the Apostle Paul to Luther:<\/p>\n Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification. Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made<\/em> righteous by God\u2019s grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically declared<\/em> righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). With Luther the situation changed dramatically . . . (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences<\/em><\/a>, co-author Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 222; italics in original)<\/p>\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! (Ibid<\/em>., 502)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Anglican Church historian Alister McGrath<\/a> (b. 1953) commented on the soteriology of the Middle Ages:<\/p>\n Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout. The Protestant understanding of the nature of justification represents a theological novum . . . . It will be clear that the medieval period was astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, where the Reformers departed from it. (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, the Beginnings to the Reformation<\/em>, two volumes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 1:184-5; see the 4th edition from 2020<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In another work, referring to this change in the definition of justification that he described as a \u201ctheological novum\u201d above, he elaborated:<\/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. . . . The Council of Trent . . . reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification . . . (Reformation Thought: An Introduction<\/em><\/a>, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109)<\/p>\n Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process . . . (Ibid<\/em>., 115)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Protestant apologists routinely claim that the Church fathers were closer in their outlooks to them than to Catholicism. It\u2019s simply not true, with regard to faith alone <\/em>or sola Scriptura<\/em>, and just about any other doctrine, either (as I\u2019ve always found in the course of my apologetics and historical research).\u00a0But despite the manifest facts and the historical evidence, there are still many Protestants who continue to promulgate the myth. One such example is the evangelical anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer, who runs the blog called Triablogue<\/em>. He wrote in a comment there on 20 February 2020<\/a>: \u201cThe claim that nobody believed in justification through faith alone . . . before the Reformation, or between the time of the apostles and the Reformation, is false.\u201d Someone ought to send him a free copy of McGrath\u2019s magisterial Iustitia Dei<\/em>.<\/p>\n We have therefore the testimony of the ancient church . . . (p. 161)<\/p>\n And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church . . . Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church. (pp. 208-209)<\/p>\n The papalists . . . search diligently in the writings of the fathers that they may scrape together from them a few statements which will in some way defend their purpose. (p. 212)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n It is undeniably the truest of axioms that that alone is the true doctrine which the apostles transmitted and which the primitive church professed as received from the apostles. (p. 225)<\/p>\n How fraudulently the papalists quote and treat the testimonies of Scripture and of antiquity in order to establish and confirm their spurious traditions. (p. 226)<\/p>\n There is a very great difference between the primitive church, which was at the time of the apostles and of apostolic men testifying with regard to the books of Holy Scripture, and the papal church, which is foisting its fictions as apostolic traditions on us without proof. (p. 228)<\/p>\n These genuine, ancient, and true traditions of the apostles we embrace with deepest reverence. (p. 246)<\/p>\n We confess also that we disagree with those who invent opinions which have no testimony from any period in the church . . . We also hold that no dogma that is new in the churches and in conflict with all antiquity should be accepted. What could be more honorably said and thought concerning the consensus and the testimonies of antiquity? . . . we search out and quote the testimonies of the fathers . . . (p. 258)<\/p>\n You may establish from this with what sincerity the papalists treat the testimonies of the fathers. (p. 266)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper<\/a>, Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary, also takes issue in his video, \u201cSola Fide in the Church Fathers Part 2: Ambrose\u201d<\/a> (2-24-22):<\/p>\n 0:35\u00a0On the previous program I discussed\u00a0sola fide<\/em>\u00a0in the Church fathers, basically trying to interact with the common Roman Catholic\u00a0argument that\u00a0sola fide<\/em>\u00a0is a theological novum<\/em>, 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\u00a0sola fide<\/em>\u00a0or various Protestant aspects of justification in the Church fathers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This claim about the profound absence of sola fide<\/em> in the fathers is by no means confined to \u201cRoman Catholic polemicists\u201d: as shown in my documentation above from Protestant apologist Norm Geisler and Anglican expert on the history of justification, Alister McGrath. To reiterate, the latter stated that\u00a0sola fide<\/em>, as newly formulated \u2014 not by Luther but by his successor, Philip Melanchthon \u2013, was \u201ca\u00a0complete break<\/em> with the teaching of the church up to that point.\u201d Note the word \u201ccomplete.\u201d That\u2019s pretty sweeping. One can always find an exception here or there (Geisler used the language of \u201cscarcely anyone\u201d) \u2014 every rule has its exceptions \u2013, but so what? The overwhelming consensus was the view regarding faith and works and justification that is preserved in the Catholic Church.<\/p>\n It was McGrath (not \u201cRoman Catholic polemics\u201d) who called\u00a0sola fide<\/em> a \u201ctheological novum\u201d three times in the 2nd edition of his book,\u00a0 Iustitia Dei<\/em><\/a> in 1998 (pp. 180, 184, 187<\/a>).\u00a0 On page 184, McGrath referred to \u201ca fundamental discontinuity\u201d that had been \u201cintroduced into the western theological tradition where none had existed before<\/em>\u201d (his italics), and this had to do with \u201cthe nature<\/em> of justification.\u201d McGrath observed \u2014 almost astonishingly, for a non-Catholic scholar \u2014 on page 180<\/a>:<\/p>\n The fundamental theological question which is thus raised is the following: can the teachings of the churches of the Reformation be regarded as truly catholic? In view of the centrality of the doctrine of justification to both the initium theologiae Lutheri<\/em> and the initium Reformationis<\/em>, this question becomes acutely pressing concerning the doctrine of justification itself. If it can be shown that the central teaching of the Lutheran Reformation, the fulcrum about which the early Reformation turned, . . . constituted a theological novum<\/em>, unknown within the previous fifteen centuries of catholic thought [that takes it back to 30 AD], it will be clear that the Reformers\u2019 claim to catholicity would be seriously prejudiced, if not totally discredited.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s measured but undeniably provocative scholarly language for what we would call in everyday language a \u201cbombshell.\u201d With all of this in mind, let\u2019s take a closer look at the beliefs of thirty of the Church fathers on the issue of justification and salvation, faith and works (minus St. Augustine, who will be treated separately), in order to prove that the patristic consensus was overwhelmingly contrary to faith alone<\/em> (per Schaff, McGrath, and Geisler).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Pope Clement of Rome<\/a> (d. c. 101) says that we attain to salvation by \u201cfaith\u201d and also \u201cif 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\u201d (Epistle to the Corinthians, 35<\/a>); he refers to \u201cbeing justified by our works, and not our words\u201d (ch. 30); \u201cFor what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?\u201d (ch. 31). Clement does teach justification by faith in chapter 32. Catholics totally agree, as to initial justification<\/a>. We simply believe that good works (which are meritorious) are necessary after<\/em> initial justification. But it\u2019s clear that he thinks that faith and works are both required for salvation (which is not faith alone<\/em>): \u201che who in lowliness of mind, . . . has observed the ordinances and appointments given by God\u2014 the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ\u201d (ch. 58). \u201cOn account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved\u201d (ch. 12); \u201cTake heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to\u00a0the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be]\u00a0unless we walk worthy of Him, . . .\u201d (ch. 21); \u201cAbraham . . . \u00a0was found faithful, inasmuch as he rendered\u00a0obedience\u00a0to the words of\u00a0God\u201d\u00a0(ch. 10); Enoch, . . . being found righteous in obedience, was translated, and death was never\u00a0known to happen to him\u201d (ch. 9); \u201cLet us cleave, therefore, to the innocent and righteous, since these are the elect of\u00a0God\u201d (ch. 46).<\/p>\n Ignatius of Antioch<\/a> (50-c. 110): \u201cNone of these things is hid from you, if you perfectly possess that\u00a0faith\u00a0and\u00a0love\u00a0towards\u00a0Christ Jesus [1 Timothy 1:14]<\/span>\u00a0which are the beginning and the end of life. For the beginning is\u00a0faith, and the end is\u00a0love. [1 Timothy 1:5]<\/span>\u00a0Now these two, being inseparably connected together, are of\u00a0God, while all other things which are requisite for a\u00a0holy\u00a0life follow after them. No man [truly] making a profession of\u00a0faith\u00a0sins; [1 John 3:7]<\/span>\u00a0nor does he that possesses\u00a0love\u00a0hate any one. The tree is made manifest by its fruit; [Matthew 12:33]<\/span>\u00a0so those that profess themselves to be\u00a0Christians\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 to the end\u201d (Epistle to the Ephesians<\/a>, 14); \u201cI also am the more encouraged, resting without anxiety in God, if indeed by means of suffering I may attain to God\u201d (Epistle to Polycarp<\/a>, ch. 7).<\/p>\n The Shepherd of Hermas<\/em><\/a> (c. 150): \u201cHave 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. . . . work your own work, and you will be saved\u201d (Bk. III, Similitude 1<\/a>); \u201c. . . that He may bestow on them the blessing which He has promised them, . . . if only they shall keep the commandments of God which they have received in great faith\u201d (<\/a>Bk. I, Vision 1, ch. 3<\/a>)<\/a>; \u201cStand steadfast, therefore, you who work righteousness, and doubt not, that your passage may be with the holy angels\u201d (Bk. I, Vision 2, ch. 2<\/a>); \u201cThey will save all who act in the same manner, and walk in guilelessness and simplicity. Those who possess such virtues will wax strong against every form of wickedness, and will abide unto eternal life. Blessed are all they who practice righteousness, for they shall never be destroyed\u201d (Bk. I, Vision 2, ch. 3<\/a>); \u201cAnd he said,\u00a0 Polycarp<\/a> (69-155): \u201cHe who raised Him up from the dead will raise us up also, if\u00a0we do His\u00a0will,\u00a0and\u00a0walk in His commandments,\u00a0and\u00a0love\u00a0what He loved,\u00a0keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness,\u00a0covetousness,\u00a0love of money,\u00a0evil\u00a0speaking, false\u00a0witness; . . .\u201d (Epistle to the Philippians<\/a>, ch. 2); \u201cWe ought to walk worthy of His commandment and glory. . . . If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world\u201d (ch. 5).<\/p>\n Justin Martyr (100-165)<\/a>: \u201cEach man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions\u201d (First Apology<\/em>, ch. 12<\/a>); \u201c. . . impelled by the desire of the eternal and pure life, we . . . hasten to confess our faith, persuaded . . . that they who have proved to God by their works that they followed Him, . . . can obtain these things\u201d (First Apology<\/em>, ch. 8<\/a>); \u201cFor not those who make profession, but those who do the works, shall be saved\u201d (First Apology<\/em>, ch. 16<\/a>);\u00a0 \u201c. . . by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation\u201d (First Apology<\/em>, ch. 65<\/a>); \u201cSince those who did that which is universally, naturally, and eternally good are pleasing to God, they shall be saved through this Christ . . .\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, ch. 45<\/a>); \u201cJesus the Son of God has promised again to deliver us . . . if we do His commandments; and has undertaken to provide an eternal kingdom [for us]\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, ch. 116<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\nYou will be saved, you and all who keep these commandments.<\/q> \u201d (Bk. II, Commandment 4, ch. 3<\/a>); \u201cYou will not be saved . . . since you have already determined for yourself that these commandments cannot be kept by man\u201d (Bk. II, Commandment 12, ch. 3<\/a>); \u201cThe commandments . . .\u00a0\u00a0are excellent, and powerful, and glorious, and able to save a man\u2019s soul\u201d (Bk. III, Similitude 6, ch. 1<\/a>).<\/p>\n
For\u00a0by\u00a0grace\u00a0we are saved:<\/q> not, indeed, without good works; but we must, by being formed for what is good, acquire an inclination for it\u201d (The Stromata<\/em>, Bk. V, ch. 1<\/a>); \u201cPresent yourself to God as an offering of first-fruits, that there may be not the work alone, but also the grace of God; and both are requisite, that the friend of Christ may be rendered worthy of the kingdom, and be counted worthy of the kingdom\u201d (Exhortation to the Heathen<\/em>, ch. 11<\/a>); \u201cProphecy is given . . . for obedience, that we may be saved . . .\u201d (The Instructor<\/em>, Bk. I, ch. 2<\/a>); \u201cI . . . lay before you good commandments; by which you will reach salvation\u201d (The Instructor<\/em>, Bk. III, ch. 12<\/a>); \u201cTo keep from wrong is the beginning of salvation\u201d (The Stromata<\/em>, Bk. IV, ch. 3<\/a>); \u201c. . . obedience, by which comes salvation\u201d (The Stromata<\/em>, Bk. VI, ch. 12<\/a>); \u201c. . . abstinence from what is evil, activity in doing good, by which salvation is acquired\u201d (The Stromata<\/em>, Bk. VII. ch. 12<\/a>); \u201cWhosoever . . . distinguishes himself in good works shall gain the prize of everlasting life\u201d (Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?<\/em>, 1<\/a>); \u201c. . . dispositions in accordance with the command of God; for which there shall accrue to you endless reward and honour, and salvation, and everlasting immortality\u201d (Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?<\/em>, 19<\/a>).<\/div>\n
Your\u00a0faith\u00a0has saved you,<\/q>\u00a0by\u00a0Him who had declared by Habakkuk,\u00a0
The just shall live by his\u00a0faith.<\/q>\u00a0[Habakkuk 2:4]\u201d <\/span>(Against Marcion<\/em>, Bk. IV, ch. 18<\/a>); \u201cFor each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says\u201d (On Exhortation to Chastity<\/em><\/a>, ch. 7); \u201cthe children of believers were designed for holiness, and thereby for salvation\u201d (A Treatise on the Soul<\/em>, ch. 39<\/a>).<\/div>\n
well done thou good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things.<\/q> [Matthew 25:21]\u201d<\/span> (On the Spirit<\/em>, ch. 16, 40<\/a>); \u201cIt is yours according to your merit to be \u201cever with the Lord,\u201d . . .\u201d (On the Spirit<\/em>, ch. 28, 69<\/a>).<\/div>\n