Justification By Faith Alone:A History

[Xavier]

Your own sources admit that Reformed doctrine was not taught at any time between the Apostolic age and the Reformation. They spend more time explaining why orthodoxy isn't important than they did quote mining their best.

I'm sorry, but the view of orthodoxy presented in this thread is a serious error against the Holy Spirit and the one Holy Church. Between calling modern Arminians AND the majority of the Saints heretics...

You folks need to take a serious step back and examine what you are actually saying.

[Calvinist4Him]

These posts regarding the early church have been most edifying to me, and I thank you for the effort you have made to provide answer to the OP. If you have more to offer up, I hope you will do so. I am copying and saving and appreciating very much.

Nang

Aww....thanks mom.

[Calvinist4Him]

Your own sources admit that Reformed doctrine was not taught at any time between the Apostolic age and the Reformation. They spend more time explaining why orthodoxy isn't important than they did quote mining their best.

I'm sorry, but the view of orthodoxy presented in this thread is a serious error against the Holy Spirit and the one Holy Church. Between calling modern Arminians AND the majority of the Saints heretics...

You folks need to take a serious step back and examine what you are actually saying.

I think it's the other way around. You need to take a step back and ask yourself "why am I a Protestant?" You wouldn't be a Methodist were it not for the Reformation. I believe the modern evangelical Church needs to re-discover the timeless truths taught by the Reformers, or they are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Arminians of your stripe, are more Catholic friendly than ever. Evangelical Arminian leaders and evangelical Catholic leaders are working on destroying the wall seperating the two. Perhaps it's time you re-examine the REASONS for the Reformation in the first place. If you can't agree with the Reformers, maybe it's time you lay aside your differences with the evangelical Catholics and join them in the name of unity? If you do agree with the Reformation, then in the name of unity, please start talking like it .

[seer]

So now the creed and councils are not the issue, now you're going back to anybody before the Reformers. I've "proven" to you that the Church Fathers DID teach it, although they were inconsistant. What part of "not by works" do you not understand?

I must be in OZ.... Listen C4, every one of them believed that baptism was necessary for salvation. That is NOT Sola Fide - no matter how much you close your eyes...



Such are the words of a desperate man...trusting in his works, and not in the works of the Lord.

Now you are making false accusations against me? That is quite christian of you...

[seer]

Paul did. Isn't that who we should all be going back to? I mean, poop on Augustine and those guys, why not just go back to the origin and see what's what?

This is just a history lesson. It does not prove anything - but it has to make you wonder...

[seer]

Seer,

This whole exchange is foolhardy on your part, for you are not giving "pause" regarding a false doctrine, but you are denying the teaching of Holy Scripture that clearly teaches in several passages, that "the just shall live by faith." (Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17, Gal. 2:20, 3:11, Heb. 10:38)

"By faith," with no additions or exceptions made to the exact and explicit words spoken by God.

The fact that the word "alone" is not stated does not mean works can be insinuated or any other factor should be added to the plain statement of God . . . "The just shall live by faith." Period.

You have no license to add to the inspired word of God. And in fact, to do so holds great promise of punishment, of which you must be warned:

"You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it . . ." Deut. 4:2

"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." Deut. 12:32

". . If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book . . ." Rev. 22:18

Nang

You know what Nang, my grilfriend is a hard headed Calvinist like you - I get enough of this from her... Go bake some cookies or something...

[Xavier]

First off, I don't feel like joining a "union" in which I'm called a heretic.

Secondly, my problems with Catholic doctrine are most certainly NOT soteriological, but rather ecclesiastical in nature. I have NO problem with the eroding wall between Evangelical and Catholic doctrine. This is an end devoutly to be wished: the physical and visible union of the mystical body of Christ.

But to sit there and say that the majority of Christian are heretics smacks of the arrogance that typifies Reformed discussion these days. I can readily accept a difference of opinion, but to go so far as to claim that orthodoxy doesn't matter is downright cultic. That's an excuse of JWs and Mormons. While I certainly don't think that the Reformed claim to historacy is as dire as those groups, the argument is the same.

The lack of testimony in your favour from the ECFs should cause you pause. They are the ones who would have had first and second hand experience with the Apostle's themselves and their language. I would never say that this should take the place of exegesis, but when you exegesis fails to find a moderate amount of support in orthodoxy that should lead someone to pause.

[Calvinist4Him]

So now the creed and councils are not the issue, now you're going back to anybody before the Reformers. I've "proven" to you that the Church Fathers DID teach it, although they were inconsistant. What part of "not by works" do you not understand?

I must be in OZ.... Listen C4, every one of them believed that baptism was necessary for salvation. That is NOT Sola Fide - no matter how much you close your eys...

So I guess you understand why I only own hardcopies of 4 (all Augustine) of the 38 volume ECF set. I agree with what you've stated on baptismal regeneration (which I deny), but you are in OZ, you've totally missed the point.

[Calvinist4Him]

This is just a history lesson. It does not prove anything - but it has to make you wonder...

Be more specific seer, what does it "HAVE" to make us wonder?

[Xavier]

So I guess you understand why I only own hardcopies of 4 (all Augustine) of the 38 volume ECF set. [...]

The other 34 speak volumes (no pun intended) against your position?

(j/k)

[Tercel]

If they have thought otherwise, that the just shall live by his love or whatever, they had a different religion, while they may have called it Christian.

I think you're right GB, there is a fundamental division between those who recognise the centrality of love to Christianity and understand that this is the grounds on which we are judged, versus those people who deny this. A denial of the central cause and goal of the Christian faith really does amount to another religion.

Paul once argued that common commitment to Christ and his cause united the Jews and Gentiles as one. But what happens when someone changes their cause? What happens when a soldier, still shouting fervant battle-cries for his country, starts aiding the cause of the opposition? So what can be said of those who claim allegiance to Christ and yet deny the value of Christ's cause of love? These people claim that merely shouting the name of Christ is the whole point in being a soldier in his army, and argue that actually fighting for his cause would be trying to merit our way into heaven, and that instead we should simply trust that our allegiance alone will bring us Christ's priase.

Christ had something to say on the subject:
"Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, "Lord, Lord"... Then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers." (Mat 7:21-23)

"The children of God and the children of the devil are revealed in this way: all who do not do what is right are not from God, nor are those who do not love their brothers and sisters....
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love." (1 John 3:10, 4:7-8)

Who is truly the faithful servant? The one who does what the master wants, or the one who proclaims his faithfulness in words but denies the value of deeds?

To put it bluntly, anyone who denies the value of love is denying everything the Christian cause is about. Anyone who claims its about being saved by our trust in Jesus to the exclusion of us being saved through our love is proclaiming a completely different religion and aiding the devil's cause to boot.

[Calvinist4Him]

Xavier, you seem to be coming out of left field, seriously you're leaving me scratching my head.

First off, I don't feel like joining a "union" in which I'm called a heretic.

Sorry, but I don't know what you're referring to there.

Secondly, my problems with Catholic doctrine are most certainly NOT soteriological, but rather ecclesiastical in nature. I have NO problem with the eroding wall between Evangelical and Catholic doctrine. This is an end devoutly to be wished: the physical and visible union of the mystical body of Christ.

Is Mariology ecclesiastical? Anyway, your desire is akin to undoing the Reformation, and going back to the days when the Church controlled interpretation, and the common man did not own a copy of the Scriptures to study.

But to sit there and say that the majority of Christian are heretics smacks of the arrogance that typifies Reformed discussion these days. I can readily accept a difference of opinion, but to go so far as to claim that orthodoxy doesn't matter is downright cultic. That's an excuse of JWs and Mormons. While I certainly don't think that the Reformed claim to historacy is as dire as those groups, the argument is the same.

You know, it wasn't until today, that I can actually understand why people would have claimed the Popes to be the "Anti-Chirst". I've always thought that was pushing it to the extreme, but it doesn't seem as extreme, considering the persecution and apostacy in the early Church. Hmm...that puts a crimp on Left Behind eschatology, doesn't it? Matt, where did you read "orthodoxy doesn't matter"?

The lack of testimony in your favour from the ECFs should cause you pause. They are the ones who would have had first and second hand experience with the Apostle's themselves and their language. I would never say that this should take the place of exegesis, but when you exegesis fails to find a moderate amount of support in orthodoxy that should lead someone to pause.

Your lack of acknowledging heresy and false teachings in the early Church should cause you to pause. From the very beginning Paul battled false teachers. Paul bodly proclaimed to the Galations 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." So if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to embrace anyone who claims to be a Christian. Turn on your T.V., go to the local Christian bookstore and browse the Christian living and eschatology sections, and tell me that everyone who claims to be a Christian, everyone who has written a Christian book or preached a sermon on T.V., is indeed a Christian, and their teachings are biblically sound. Come on now, let's not be naive.

Matthew 24:11 "And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray."

Matthew 24:24 "For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect."

2 Peter 2:1 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

When do you suppose false prophets and false teachers arose? Read Acts 6:13, Acts 13:6, Galations 2:4, 2 Peter 2:1.

1 John 4:1 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world."

Have you tested the early Church Fathers Matt, or are you just taking their word for it?

And yes, I tested Calvinism, just as surely as I once opposed it, even despised it.

[Xavier]

I don't deny that heretics exist at all times, but this picking and choosing what the ECFs are good for is just downright annoying. They were fine when coming up with the Trinity (because you agree with that), but dern their soteriology doesn't match mine so I need to throw those opinions out. Reformed churches to this day recite the creeds that those fathers wrote. Perfectly fine when dealing with heresies of every other variety, but their soteriology was wrong. The Holy Spirit simply failed to keep any of them inspired enough to see and keep the truth. Good thing that he woke up in time for Luther and Calvin.

But this is going no where... Like I said earlier, if it doesn't give you pause, if that's how you want to view things, fine by me...

Yours,
Xavier

[BenK]

Calvin merely discovered what the Scriptures had always said. It wasn't new and it didn't start with Calvin or Luther.

So Calvin, living fifteen hundred years after the writing of the New Testament, speaking a different mother tongue to the authors of the New Testament, in a completely different cultural context, could understand what the authors meant, whereas the Fathers, in the centuries immediately following the writing of the New Testament, speaking New Testament Greek as their mother tongue, in the same cultural context as the apostles themselves, did not?

[micah4]

You know what Nang, my grilfriend is a hard headed Calvinist like you - I get enough of this from her... Go bake some cookies or something...

My deepest sympathies, seer.