Yes, James probably is talking about justification (declaration of righteousness) before men.

James 2:18

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

It's easy to create a legalistic religion if you start taking quotes out of context. Imo, it's pretty clear that Clement was making the same point. He was talking about leaving a helpful legacy for other Christians.

1 Clement, Chapter 30

Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. For [the Scripture] says, "He that speaks much, shall also hear much in answer. And does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteous? Blessed is he that is born of woman, who lives but a short time: be not given to much speaking." Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for God hates those who commend themselves. Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers.

---

© source where applicable

And here's another one, since you apparently weren't satisfied by my previous mentions of unnamed individuals.

Rhodon, cited by Eusebius

For the old man Apelles entered into conversation with us, and was convicted of uttering many false opinions. For example, he asserted that men should on no account examine into their creed,6 but that every one ought to continue to the last in the belief he has once adopted. For he declared that those who had rested their hope on the Crucified One would be saved, provided only they were found living in the practice, of good works. But the most perplexing of all the doctrines laid down by him was, as we have remarked before, what he said concerning God: for he affirmed that there was only one first principle, precisely as our own faith teaches....

---

© source where applicable

Paul says that Abraham was credited righteousness before he actually did anything; and God gave him the sign of circumcision because of his trust in God. He was justified before God because he had true faith.

Can anyone site as a source, official councils that have dealt with this matter; one way or the other ?

Originally posted by Obsidian

On numerous occasions, God allowed Israel to delve into deep and widespread false religion. And in the end, Jesus finally decided to wipe them out entirely via the Romans. So allowing for this same pattern, I don't see how you can argue against the possibility of serious false doctrine clouding the Christian truth over the centuries. The apostles predicted that heretics would arise. You cannot assume that everyone who calls himself a Christian really is one.

It has been argued by Catholics and Orthodox that God/Christ founded the Church specifically SO THAT His people would not fall into doctrinal error (as Israel had done) in the past. He promises the Church that the Spirit would lead Her into all truth, never leaving her, and never allowing the Gates of Hell to prevail against her, and preserving her as the pillar and ground of the truth. So arguing that since Israel fell error so therefore the Church can fall into error, seems to miss a major point in the purpose of the founding of the Church.

Tertullian, On Baptism

Here, then, those miscreants provoke questions. And so they say, "Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith." But in all cases it is the later things which have a conclusive force, and the subsequent which prevail over the antecedent. Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added w the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed

---

© source where applicable

Around 200 A.D., therefore, people were teaching that obedience to baptism, the most basic of Christian commands, was unnecessary for salvation.

It amazes me that you could quote this and completely miss the meaning of what he plainly says. His entire point in this passage is to demonstrate the salvific necessity NOW, in the Church, of Baptism, as opposed to times past. He argues only that "in days gone by...before the passion and resurrection," (i.e. before the Church) there was salvation by "bare faith." However, he plainly states that , "the later things...have a conclusive force, and the subsequent prevail[s] over the antecedent." In other words, Baptism wasn't necessary for salvation in the past; now it is.

[cite=Augustine, City of God, Book XXI, Chapter 20]
So, too, there are others who promise this deliverance from eternal punishment, not, indeed, to all men, but only to those who have been washed in Christian baptism, and who become partakers of the body of Christ, no matter how they have lived, or what heresy or impiety they have fallen into. They ground this opinion on the saying of Jesus, “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.”[1] Therefore, say they, it follows that these persons must be delivered from death eternal, and at one time or other be introduced to everlasting life.

If you think this is a critique of Catholic soteriology, I can't say you understand it very well. Note his rebuttal, in the very passage, of the notion that anyone could be saved "no matter how they lived." (the common Catholic/Orthodox argument against Sola Fide).

If you deny that Augustine regarded Baptism as salvific, see:

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than "salvation" and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than "life." Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? (On Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism, 1:34; NPNF 1, V, 28)

When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. . . . Baptism was instituted for all sins. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet, God does not forgive sins except to the baptized. (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16; Jurgens, III, 35)

You obviously missed my point -- because I couldn't care less what Augustine thought. Same goes for Tertullian, or whoever else. I just brought them up because they acknowledged that various teachers were advocating purely Protestant theology during their own times. Kabane claimed that no one taught salvation sola fide before the Reformation, but according to Augustine's and Tertullian's own admission, people were teaching it.

I agree that as a whole, the Holy Spirit leads Christians into truth. But you've somewhat missed my point on that argument as well. I'm saying that not everyone who identified himself as part of the church was necessarily a Christian. Thus, many people you are classifying as part of "the Church" did not actually have the Holy Spirit.

Well, I think it is correct doctrine to say, practically speaking, that if you are believing, faithful, working, and not sinning except on the rare occasion, you should be good.

Shake it out how you like in theology, it all should look the same for Christians in any case.

Originally posted by Kabane52

That is not what James nor Clement says. He does not say, and thus you see that we are justified by faith, and the evidence of faith is from our deeds, but our deeds do not justify. They say WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY WORKS.

I agree with Obsidian. This is all in the context of demonstration or declaration of justification before men.

Let's look at the passage:

17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

James says, "you see (that a person is justified by works...)"

"See" being horao--properly, "to stare at", it's primary meaning to see with the eyes.

"Justified" being dikaioo--"to render righteous or such he ought to be" (before God, obviously, as this is a theological term.)

"Works" being ergon--"deeds", here (in context) of the law.

So, what do we have?

"You see with your eyes that someone is righteous before God by the deeds that they do."

This, of course, is entirely compatible with Paul in all of Romans 3. Paul anywhere, actually.

What James is saying here is that a faith that doesn't "prove" itself in works is dead. iow, there can be no presence of life itself--the Holy Spirit. It is a "faith" (I would say an idolatrous "faith") in anything BUT a living faith in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

James confirms this--in the final verse of this passage, 2:26: For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Originally posted by Obsidian

And here's another one, since you apparently weren't satisfied by my previous mentions of unnamed individuals.

Rhodon, cited by Eusebius

For the old man Apelles entered into conversation with us, and was convicted of uttering many false opinions. For example, he asserted that men should on no account examine into their creed,6 but that every one ought to continue to the last in the belief he has once adopted. For he declared that those who had rested their hope on the Crucified One would be saved, provided only they were found living in the practice, of good works. But the most perplexing of all the doctrines laid down by him was, as we have remarked before, what he said concerning God: for he affirmed that there was only one first principle, precisely as our own faith teaches....

---

© source where applicable

A few others,

Ignatius of Antioch (35-107 AD): “None of these things is hid from you, if ye perfectly possess that faith and love towards Christ Jesus which are the beginning and the end of life. For the beginning is faith, and the end is love. Now these two. being inseparably connected together, are of God, while all other things which are requisite for a holy life follow after them. No man [truly] making a profession of faith sinneth; so those that profess themselves to be Christians shall 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 faith to the end. nor does he that possesses love hate any one. The tree is made manifest by its fruit;” (Epistle to the Ephesians, Chap. XIV — Exhortations to Faith and Love)

Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444): For truly the compassion from beside the Father is Christ, as he takes away the sins, dismisses the charges and justifies by faith, and recovers the lost and makes [them] stronger than death. For what is good and he does not give? Therefore the knowledge of God is better than sacrifice and holocausts, as it is brought to perfection in Christ. For by him and in him we have known the Father, and we have become rich in the justification by faith. (Commentary on Hosea.)

Ambrose (337 - 397 AD): "God chose that man should seek salvation by faith rather than by works, lest any should glory in his deeds and should thereby incur sin.” (Enarrationes In XII Psalmos Davidicos, p. 94/138 (col. 1149-1150), In Psalmum XVIII Enarratio, 14

Ambrosiaster (ca. 380 AD): "For justification, faith alone in love is necessary. For faith must be fortified with brotherly love for the perfection of the believer." (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Galatians 5:6)

John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD): But wherefore hath He chosen us? “That we should be holy and without a blemish before Him.” That you may not then, when you hear that “He hath chosen us,” imagine that faith alone is sufficient, he proceeds to add life and conduct. To this end, saith he, hath He chosen us, and on this condition, “that we should be holy and without blemish.” (...) A holy man is he who is a partaker of faith; a blameless man is he who leads an irreproachable life. (Homilies on Ephesians)

Originally posted by Obsidian

You obviously missed my point -- because I couldn't care less what Augustine thought. Same goes for Tertullian, or whoever else. I just brought them up because they acknowledged that various teachers were advocating purely Protestant theology during their own times.

Whether or not it was "purely Protestant" theology their opponents were advocating is debatable. Augustine, for one, was refuting people who said that simply being baptized was enough to ensure salvation - which is most certainly NOT Protestant theology.

Kabane claimed that no one taught salvation sola fide before the Reformation, but according to Augustine's and Tertullian's own admission, people were teaching it.

Oh, surely there were some individuals prior to Luther who had ideas somewhat like Sola Fide, but Luther was, at least, the first one to really formalize and popularize such ideas. If you're trying to argue that there has always been some "Sola Fide", proto-Protestant remnant within the Church since the days of the Apostles, I think you're gonna have a tough time proving that historically.

I agree that as a whole, the Holy Spirit leads Christians into truth. But you've somewhat missed my point on that argument as well. I'm saying that not everyone who identified himself as part of the church was necessarily a Christian. Thus, many people you are classifying as part of "the Church" did not actually have the Holy Spirit.

What you seemed to be arguing was that since Israel (generally speaking) in the Old Testament fell into doctrinal error, it is conceivable that the Church (generally speaking) in the New Testament fell into doctrinal error. My only point was that this misses a very important aspect of why Christ founded the Church. We can talk about individual heretics and sinners all day long, but when we start talking about "the Church" as a whole and institutionally, that's a different issue.

Augustine, for one, was refuting people who said that simply being baptized was enough to ensure salvation - which is most certainly NOT Protestant theology.

Augustine was explaining the beliefs of people whom he did not agree with, so it's possible that he didn't communicate them entirely accurately.

But regardless, I think the rabid opposition among some Protestants to baptismal regeneration may be unjustified. I don't see how baptismal regeneration is much different from, say, Sinner's-Prayer regeneration. I think the important point is to understand that we have received salvation through Christ as a gift and that we cannot lose it (See 1 John 5:10-12, cited earlier).

The Bible makes it clear in the case of Cornelius and his household that baptism is not necessary for salvation (nor is the Sinner's Prayer), but if someone believed that God had graciously and eternally redeemed them because they got baptized, I don't think that would damn them to hell. I don't think precisely understanding the mechanism of salvation is vital. The point is to understand (through faith) your spiritual, eternally resurrected status as a Christian.

As a practical matter, though, pretty much everyone today who believes in baptismal regeneration also believes in works-salvation. So we may as well oppose two errors (baptismal regeneration and works-salvation) at the same time.

Oh, surely there were some individuals prior to Luther who had ideas somewhat like Sola Fide, but Luther was, at least, the first one to really formalize and popularize such ideas. If you're trying to argue that there has always been some "Sola Fide", proto-Protestant remnant within the Church since the days of the Apostles, I think you're gonna have a tough time proving that historically.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think already did prove it. And if you really want to make a big deal out of that "baptism" reference, then you need to address Tertullian's comments (100 years earlier) which I cited.

What you seemed to be arguing was that since Israel (generally speaking) in the Old Testament fell into doctrinal error, it is conceivable that the Church (generally speaking) in the New Testament fell into doctrinal error.

That may have seemed to be what I was arguing, but it wasn't what I was arguing. To put it bluntly, I'm arguing that you are not part of the church, and that your doctrinal errors therefore do not reflect on the Holy Spirit's faithfulness.


@ Reformanda,

Yes, many other writers paid lip service, at the very least, to salvation sola fide. A lot of them made other statements that seemed to contradict their Protestant credentials, though, so I was tryin' to stick with a couple references that seemed unimpeachable.

Originally posted by Obsidian

Augustine was explaining the beliefs of people whom he did not agree with, so it's possible that he didn't communicate them entirely accurately.

This is true. That being said, it's tought for me to imagine how Augustine could get his opponents' views so wrong that he would claim they thought Baptism alone was sufficient for salvation, if they actually though FAITH alone was sufficient for salvation.

But regardless, I think the rabid opposition among some Protestants to baptismal regeneration may be unjustified. I don't see how baptismal regeneration is much different from, say, Sinner's-Prayer regeneration. I think the important point is to understand that we have received salvation through Christ as a gift and that we cannot lose it (See 1 John 5:10-12, cited earlier).

The Early Church's (and the RC/EO's today) emphasis is continually on "maintaining one's baptism" or "keeping one's baptism pure," etc. It seems to be indicative of a view where Baptism was the/an initial step in the process of salvation which we operate from as Christians.

The Bible makes it clear in the case of Cornelius and his household that baptism is not necessary for salvation)

While I disagree, it's not worth it to go off on some tangent about.

but if someone believed that God had graciously and eternally redeemed them because they got baptized, I don't think that would damn them to hell.

Well that's good.

As a practical matter, though, pretty much everyone today who believes in baptismal regeneration also believes in works-salvation. So we may as well oppose two errors (baptismal regeneration and works-salvation) at the same time.

Lutheranism might be a good counter-example?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think already did prove it.

You did? Quoting two guys does not prove (even if they're saying what you're claiming they say, which is debatable) that there has been a continual line of believers in Sola Fide through all of Church history.

And if you really want to make a big deal out of that "baptism" reference, then you need to address Tertullian's comments (100 years earlier) which I cited.

Tertullian does not go into detail about exactly what those his opponents believed. That being said, even if they did believe in some form of Sola Fide, once again that does not demonstrate some continual line of proto-Protestants throughout Church history. That is a much more monumental task. So I hate to burst your bubble, , but if that's what you're attempting you've still got a lot of work to do.

That may have seemed to be what I was arguing, but it wasn't what I was arguing. To put it bluntly, I'm arguing that you are not part of the church, and that your doctrinal errors therefore do not reflect on the Holy Spirit's faithfulness.

I am not part of the Church? Why not, pray tell? Would you also say I am not a Christian?

Because you do not trust in Jesus for eternal life. You trust in your own righteousness. And you do not believe the "testimony":

1 John 5

10Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

But regarding my two citations, it sounds like you're admitting I've got pretty decent sources, but that you have now shifted the burden of proof to make me show a continuous line of believers from the years 100-1500 A.D. I'm not sure I can pull that off. It wasn't the computer age, and they didn't have the printing press. Not everyone was an author like they are now. So I don't really think it's necessary to show a continuous line. Simply showing some early examples should be sufficient. Kabane just wanted examples of people prior to Martin Luther who believed in faith alone for salvation. I've shown at least a couple, and I've done so without even having to appeal to Clement of Rome (whom I know you would argue with me about) or other church writers who tended to write rather conflicting opinions on the issue.

I don't derive my doctrinal authority from a documented, continuous paper trail of believers. I derive it from the Bible. Looking at people in the past who held similar ideas just helps me know I'm not insane.

Originally posted by Obsidian

Because you do not trust in Jesus for eternal life. You trust in your own righteousness.

That is simply false. I am saved wholly by grace through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ready to call me a brother in Christ yet?

You added:

And you do not believe the "testimony":

1 John 5

10Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

I thoroughly believe that. So again, are you ready to repudiate your false notions about my beliefs?

But regarding my two citations, it sounds like you're admitting I've got pretty decent sources, but that you have now shifted the burden of proof to make me show a continuous line of believers from the years 100-1500 A.D.

Not exactly. I question to exactly what degree Tertullian's and Augustine's opponents were "purely Protestant" as you claim. Particularly in Augustine's case, the theology he is refuting there is a far cry from Protestantism. I then said IF you think that proves that there has been a continuous line (which you then said you think it does), then you have a lot more work to do.

I'm not sure I can pull that off. It wasn't the computer age, and they didn't have the printing press.

Come now, Obsidian, you know that excuse isn't gonna fly. While you're right that information was not as extensive back then, that doesn't make it non-existant. We can look back and see what people DID write, when they wrote something.

Not everyone was an author like they are now. So I don't really think it's necessary to show a continuous line. Simply showing some early examples should be sufficient.

Sufficient for what, exactly?

I don't derive my doctrinal authority from a documented, continuous paper trail of believers. I derive it from the Bible.

Isn't the Bible a sort of documented, continuous paper trail of believers?

Looking at people in the past who held similar ideas just helps me know I'm not insane.

Then knowing how Christians in the past have understood salvation or interpreted the Bible does have relevance to you. That's good. Do you care that your view was at best a tiny minority as opposed to the vast majority view?

Originally posted by RCNicholas

Then knowing how Christians in the past have understood salvation or interpreted the Bible does have relevance to you. That's good. Do you care that your view was at best a tiny minority as opposed to the vast majority view?

Not a helpful way to frame the question, given how many members of the church in the middle ages lived their whole lives without ever reading a Bible, just parroting what was told to them by a village priest who was usually as illiterate as they were. It's no coincidence how closely tied in history were the printing press and the Reformation. Once people could see what the Bible actually said, the jig was up.

Not exactly. I question to exactly what degree Tertullian's and Augustine's opponents were "purely Protestant" as you claim. Particularly in Augustine's case, the theology he is refuting there is a far cry from Protestantism.

First you made that assertion, and then you stated that the Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration, and now you're going back again and asserting that it's a non-Protestant belief. You can't have it both ways. I've already explained to you why I don't think Augustine's description conflicts much, if at all, with Protestantism.

I've also shown that Tertullian described people who did not believe that even baptism -- the most basic of Christian works -- was necessary for salvation. If that's not salvation sola fide, then I don't know what is. You're stretching here, and you should know it. You're just unwilling to budge an inch.

I thoroughly believe that [1 John 5:10-12].

Sure, if you want to redefine the terms "given" to "mean paid us with," and "eternal life" to mean "life that may or may not be eternal depending on how many rules we continue to follow throughout life."

Come now, Obsidian, you know that excuse isn't gonna fly. While you're right that information was not as extensive back then, that doesn't make it non-existant. We can look back and see what people DID write, when they wrote something.

Why don't you tell that to Jovinian, or Jan Huss.

That's good. Do you care that your view was at best a tiny minority as opposed to the vast majority view?

We don't determine true religion by taking a majority vote among all the population of the earth.

Originally posted by RBerman

Not a helpful way to frame the question, given how many members of the church in the middle ages lived their whole lives without ever reading a Bible, just parroting what was told to them by a village priest who was usually as illiterate as they were.

Anybody who wrote something down would have been literate. So again, while writing was not as widespread, we can know what people DID write down.