Justification By Faith Alone:A History

[FlimFlamboyant]

Nang, the POINT of this thread is that no council or creed taught "Sola Fide" for the first 1500 years of the Church. Whether right or wrong, this is an historic fact.

I'm not aware of any council or creed that promotes the idea of faith alone (though I could easily be missing something). However, does the absence of a council or creed really prove anything? If the Bible clearly taught what these councils and creeds were claiming, would men have felt compelled to write them to begin with? Could the absense of creeds declaring grace through faith alone be an indication that the Bible clearly teaches it, and therefore no one felt the need to create a creed to begin with?

[seer]

I'm not aware of any council or creed that promotes the idea of faith alone (though I could easily be missing something). However, does the absence of a council or creed really prove anything? If the Bible clearly taught what these councils and creeds were claiming, would men have felt compelled to write them to begin with? Could the absense of creeds declaring grace through faith alone be an indication that the Bible clearly teaches it, and therefore no one felt the need to create a creed to begin with?

No Flim, it wasn't believed - like Augustine and Orange the church east and west taught salvation by both faith and works...

[Nang]

Nang, the POINT of this thread is that no council or creed taught "Sola Fide" for the first 1500 years of the Church. Whether right or wrong, this is an historic fact.

And my point was, the entire Holy Scriptures teach Sola Fide, and it was even reflected in the beliefs of those at the Council of Orange, despite their mistaken theology and wrong applications.

Salvation is found in Christ, alone, through Grace, alone, by the gift of faith, alone, which comes by the hearing of Holy Scripture, alone, to the glory of God, alone.

These truths are eternal and didn't just recently appear amongst the Reformers.

Nang

[FlimFlamboyant]

No Flim, it wasn't believed - like Augustine and Orange the church east and west taught salvation by both faith and works...

Are you confident that Augustine and Orange spoke for the Body of Christ as a whole? Are you confident that they spoke for the true church at all?

[seer]

And my point was, the entire Holy Scriptures teach Sola Fide, and it was even reflected in the beliefs of those at the Council of Orange, despite their mistaken theology and wrong applications.

But Sola Fide was NOT taught in Orange - that is the point... Sheesh woman...

[seer]

Are you confident that Augustine and Orange spoke for the Body of Christ as a whole? Are you confident that they spoke for the true church at all?

Ok, it's on you - who taught salvation by faith alone? The Catholic Church? The Orthodox Church? The Copitc Church? Who? Who's left?

[FlimFlamboyant]

Ok, it's on you - who taught salvation by faith alone? The Catholic Church? The Orthodox Church? The Copitc Church? Who? Who's left?

The Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is not a famed organized religious institution as is the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, etc. Like I said, I'm not personally aware of any council or creed that taught salvation by faith alone. My question is; so what?

[seer]

The Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is not a famed organized religious institution as is the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, etc. Like I said, I'm not personally aware of any council or creed that taught salvation by faith alone. My question is; so what?

The so what Flim, is why? Why did God allow this important (even central) truth of our faith to be hidden for the first 1500 years of the Church? Could it be that the doctrine was incorrect?


Here is a good article by a Reformed author:

http://members.surfbest.net/shadrach/just.htm

[Nang]

And my point was, the entire Holy Scriptures teach Sola Fide, and it was even reflected in the beliefs of those at the Council of Orange, despite their mistaken theology and wrong applications.

But Sola Fide was NOT taught in Orange - that is the point... Sheesh woman...

Salvation by the grace of God through the gift of faith, was declared.

(The means of receiving that grace was incorrectly taught to be water baptism.)

Sola Scriptura (the entire Bible message) is the means of grace.

Men are saved by Sola Gratia, through Sola Fide, by the means of Sola Scriptura, which teaches Solus Christos, achieving Soli Deo Gloria.

Speak of one, you speak of all, whether you are aware of it, or not.

One cannot separate the glory of God from the Christ, and one cannot separate the Christ from His Word, and one cannot replace the Word as the sole means of faith, and one cannot receive saving faith apart from God's grace.

So your declaration that Sola Fide was never taught before the 1500's, equates with declaring that the Gospel was never preached until the Reformation.



Nang

[FlimFlamboyant]

The so what Flim, is why? Why did God allow this important (even central) truth of our faith to be hidden for the first 1500 years of the Church? Could it be that the doctrine was incorrect?

Well, I don't know about you, but I can't bring myself to justify the validity of a doctrine by its popularity. You seem to be on the border of assuming that since there is no record of creed or council that "approved" the doctrine, that somehow this is sufficient evidence that it wasn't taught by anyone during that time. I have no doubt that it wasn't very popular during that time, but non-existant? That's a major stretch. Beings that Paul was forsaken by darn near everyone in the latter portion of his ministry, this fact doesn't even surprise me.

So why would God allow it to be "hidden" for so long? The fact is, he didn't. He gave Paul 40 years to proclaim this message over the course of his ministry, throughout a good porition of the known world at that time. However, it never really caught on in a lasting manner. Why not? Because man doesn't want salvation handed to him as a free gift; he wants to work for it, so he would have room to boast. The doctrine was largely rejected, and quickly faded. If man doesn't want anything to do with God's free gift, what's God going to do about that? Is he going to force it on him somehow? The information was right there in the letters that Paul wrote during that time, and they were never hidden; it's not God's fault that man rejected it.

I am reminded by the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. The rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus to his friends so that they would believe:

(Luk 16:27-29) Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

... Yet Abraham refuses. They already had all the information they needed to believe if they were ever going to be inclined to do so.

[Tercel]

When Paul spoke of works, I don't dispute the fact that he most often had the works of the law in mind. However, I believe it was purely an issue of circumstance; that is, the works of the law of Moses were THE big issue that Paul was facing at the time. If he had lived 500 years later, he would've been arguing against the sacraments of the Catholic church, and so on.

Perhaps. Personally I find it really interesting to read Romans 2:17-29 with such thinking in mind:
"So you call yourself a Christian and rely on the Bible and boast of your relation to God, and think you know his will and can determine what is best because you are instructed by the Bible, and you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the Bible the embodiment of knowledge and truth? But so many of those that are so ready to teach others are themselves hypocritical and need to teach themselves! So many do the evil they preach against! You who boast in the Bible, do you dishonour God by disobeying him? It is written “The name of God is blasphemed among non-Christians because of you”!

Things like going to Church are of value if you do good, but if you’re doing evil your Christianity has become non-Christianity. So if non-Christians do good, will not their non-Christianity be regarded as Christianity? Those who call themselves non-Christians but do good will rightly condemn you that call yourselves Christians but who do evil of every kind. A person is not a true Christian by being one outwardly, nor is true membership of God’s Church something external. Rather, a person is truly a Christian who is one inwardly, and real membership of the Church a matter of the heart – it is spiritual and not literal. God will praise such people, even if others do not!"

If you wish to contend that Paul's intention was to speak against the works of the law of Moses only, that he held to the idea that some other works were required for salvation, then I'd like a few questions answered.

1. What works are they that we have to perform? Where are they listed?

"For he will repay according to each one's deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life... glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good," (Rom 2:6-10)

"To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace." "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." (Rom 8:6, Gal 5:22-23)

"if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing... faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor 13:2,13)

2. How are these commandments any better than what was given in the law of Moses?

They are "attested by the law and the prophets" (Rom 3:21). God has not changed, and what he sees as virtuous has not changed.

3. How are we any more likely to keep them than the law of Moses?

The issue was never about not being able to keep them, that was never the issue. We will keep them if we imitate Christ.

[Tercel]

Now that I've read some NPP stuff, I'll say that I tend to agree that the usual caricature of second temple Judaism as a species of Pelagianism is not entirely accurate.

However, the reduction of Paul's references to "works" to ritual or ceremonial acts required by the law is, I think unfounded. The opening chapters of Romans clearly indicate the presence of a moral law writtewn on the hearts of all men with, or without reference to the written Mosaic law.

And with regard to this moral law, he says it might accuse the individual or defend them on the day of judgement. In other words he's saying that Gentiles who act morally will receive a favourable judgement. He also said that earlier in Rom 2:6-11. Nothing surprising about that: He's just repeating standard Jewish doctrine.

The 'works' he refers to seem to encompass not only those specific acts required by the Mosaic law but any good deed stemming from an implicit acknowledgement of that common moral law.

What makes you think this? Where does he seem to be referring to such works?

Why ought we to think he is referring to both works of the law and good works, when his argument makes perfect sense if we read him as referring to only works of the law and not good works? At least as far back as the 4th century the commentaries were explaining how Paul when he said "works of the law" didn't mean good works and only meant the rituals of the law... why should we accept your view that he means good works too?

[seer]

Salvation by the grace of God through the gift of faith, was declared.

(The means of receiving that grace was incorrectly taught to be water baptism.)

Sola Scriptura (the entire Bible message) is the means of grace.

Men are saved by Sola Gratia, through Sola Fide, by the means of Sola Scriptura, which teaches Solus Christos, achieving Soli Deo Gloria.

Speak of one, you speak of all, whether you are aware of it, or not.

One cannot separate the glory of God from the Christ, and one cannot separate the Christ from His Word, and one cannot replace the Word as the sole means of faith, and one cannot receive saving faith apart from God's grace.

So your declaration that Sola Fide was never taught before the 1500's, equates with declaring that the Gospel was never preached until the Reformation.



Nang

Sheesh! That is the point Nang, water baptism (a work) was necessary for receiving grace. It was not faith alone. And yes, the gospel as YOU understand it was not held by any church, creed or council until the Reformers...

Let me quote a reformed author:

"The history of the doctrine justification by faith alone is difficult to trace before the Reformation in the 1500's. A clear line of development of this doctrine from the Apostles to Martin Luther simply does not exit."


http://members.surfbest.net/shadrach/just.htm

[Calvinist4Him]

OR one could synthesize it this way:

Theonomy

Heteronomy

Autonomy

...as in the thought of Karl barth , a very well studied man who's lectures about Calvin are considered classic.

Unless I desired to study his errors, I wouldn't give a nickel for any of Karl Barth's works, because the man was a heretic.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=42204212057
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=42204212149

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=12200385346
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...nID=1220038556

[seer]

Unless I desired to study his errors, I wouldn't give a nickel for any of Karl Barth's works, because the man was a heretic.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=42204212057
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=42204212149

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=12200385346
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...nID=1220038556

Who isn't a heretic to Van Til?