/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>581770

I would answer you're engaging in subjectivist literary analysis yet again because you're desperately trying to 'prove' that the early Churches were protestant. And arguing with you about this is a waste of time, just like arguing over a certain theme in Shakespeare's Macbeth would be.

>you see, Macbeth here says this and this so it proves this and this

>yeah but here he says this and this, which disproves your argument

>no, no you see it's clear what he means here, it could also mean this and this hence we can conclude this and this

>nah man you misinterpreted it, what he really means is this and this, see line this and this

>ad infinitum

Every. Single. Apostolic Church has always had the same stance on this, what you are doing is theological dead horse beating. And the very fact that these 'scholars' have the audacity to claim to know Pauline theology better than st. Paul's followers who became bishops in the near East and handed it down is just preposterous.

1)On Chapters 9-12

Here, there is really nothing much objectionable but this does give the impression that James and Hebrews both contradict each other. While there is also not much wrong in saying true faith produces works, there should not be any impression that faith and action should be separated. One example is in Chapter 6 where the endurance of Danaids and Dircæ are considered part of their "course of faith". It is also stated that through their steadfastness, they had received their reward which is clearly something salvific in nature.

Chapter 10 on Abraham also states that Abraham was found faithful inasmuch as he rendered obedience to the words of God. Here, Abraham's faith is tied to his obedience thus warning us against making a distinction between faith and works in Clement. The same is to be said when Clement invokes Rahab(Chapter 12) as an example of faith. While he states thar Rahab was saved on account of her "faith and hospitality", the act of hospitality itself is given to illustrate this.

>>581781

I am hoping to give a response to this.

>>581770

Oh, and you always make a point to attack Catholics instead of being honest and attacking all Churches,

Here's something from the Copts:

>http://www.coptic.net/lessons/FaithAndWorks.txt

>Neither faith alone nor good works alone can save:

>Saint Paul teaches us that faith alone is not sufficient for our salvation, "And though I have all faith so that I could move mountains and have no charity, I am nothing." (I Corinthians 13:2) and he also says that good works that are done without the faith in Christ's salvation, like those done by the Jews according to Moses' Law only, is not a justification for us, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28) The two of them, faith and works, are required for our salvation through the grace given to us by God as His children, "For by grace are ye

saved through faith… Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8,9).

>>581770

2)Chapters 17-21

The claim that following the examples of the Saints is not about Salvation is one which can easily be disproven by looking at one of Clement's appeals to Scripture in Chapter 15 where Clement states,

"They loved Him with their mouth, and lied to Him with their tongue; but their heart was not right with Him, neither were they faithful in His covenant. Let the deceitful lips become silent, [and let the Lord destroy all the lying lips, ] and the boastful tongue of those who have said, Let us magnify our tongue: our lips are our own; who is lord over us? For the oppression of the poor, and for the sighing of the needy, will I now arise, says the Lord: I will place him in safety; I will deal confidently with him."

Clearly this is definitely not mere chastisement as it states that God will destroy the lying and deceitful lips of those who pretend to cultivate peace. Chapter 21 would also not match judgement according to chastisement as instead it can be read as "condemnation" which is would also make more sense given what is stated in Chapter 22 when Pslam 34:11-17 is quoted which states that those who do evil will be cut off from rememberence of them on earth. That certainly does not look like a judgement to "chastise" at all.

>How would you answer Catholics?

A bad attempt to insert reformation theology into the early church. Before going any further it is useful to point out a few things

1) This assumes St. Paul teaches justification by faith alone

2) This assumes the early church believed in faith alone. This is shown by the large number of statements such as "Clements point may not be so much [catholic theology] as [whatever supports my thesis], or "Like James, Clement uses the word δικαιοω in 1 Clement 30:3 not in the legal sense of being declared right, but in the sense of vindicated" which makes several deadly assumptions, firstly that St. James uses it in the sense of vindicated and not in the same sense that St. Paul uses it, secondly it assumes that St. Clement makes the same distinction the author does in the use of δικαιοω , thirdly it assumes St. Clement intends to make such a distinction(For the assumptions that St. Clement believes in the distinction exists), and fourthly it assumes on these basis' that St. Clement intends the (assumed) distinction to be in line with what the author claims, that is δικαιοω means here to be vindicated and not declared. That these assumptions exist are necessary for his point of view, but if the argument is "Does St. Clement teach Catholic of Protestant theology" the author would be better served by refuting the presence of catholic theology in statements like this rather than saying "It can be read in a way that makes sense in protestant theology". I guess that is really the problem with this entire piece, it doesn't answer the question "Does St. Clement teach justification by faith and works" but "Can St. Clement be read in a manner consistent with protestant/reformed theology".

3) These assumptions are never proven to be correct, as all of St. Clements statements are perfectly valid in Catholic theology as well

>>581770

3)Chapter 26-32

Ingolfsland starts this part off with a reminder that works stem from faith to argue that the emphasis on works does not contradict Sola Fide. Of course, a non Protestant can easily affirm that works are the fruits of faith but as shown in how Clement does with Abraham in Chapter 10 and Rahab in Chapter 12, it would make these acts of obedience part of what "faith" is. As those are used as examples of faith to begin with. The statement on Pauline judgement of God rendering one according to his works is not objectionable in this context and can even be detrimental to the author's intent to argue that Clement of Rome espouse Sola Fide.

Chapter 26 also doesn't say that "holiness is the result of good faith" but instead, Clement asks,

"Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise?"

Here, the act of piously serving God in good faith may support the claim that "faith produces works" but this does not negate a non Protestant view or would even distinguish between the two, as the assurance of good faith is linked to the act of piously serving God.

Indeed, Chapters 29-30 does speak of those who are within God's portion. Let us grant that the elect portion is also Saved, this still does not make any case for sola fide, as those who are Saved still need to take care not to backslide as the author states himself. That ironically creates a situation where works maintain Salvation, especially in light of how "faith" in Clement includes the acts of obedience as shown earlier. The attempt to argue that James' justification by works in verse 2:24 as something proven to be true does not do much to argue for his position, as James 2 is clear that Faith itself would be actualised in action. It can be seen that these actions are the fruits of faith to James, but regardless, it still does show that faith that is true is such because there are works, making them essentially part of "faith" itself.

Chapter 31 does state that one being justified isn't justified by his own works but by the will of God but it does not need to entail Sola Fide. This is because a Catholic can simply argue that it is because of God's Grace and act in Christ that is needed for justification in the first place, and works are that which are done in Grace. The final statement there could even possibly refer to the faith of Jesus Himself. Perhaps "faith" there could be seen along the lines of "fidelity" or "conviction" both of which are included in the definition of Pistis itself. More importantly of course is that right after this, Clement had to clarify that one should not be slothful simply because of this justification by the will of God. In light of this, it would give more credence that "faith" in the previous chapter's last statement is better off as the faith of Christ. But in light of this, a situation where works is to maintain Salvation is presented and so although Jesus is the basis of one's Salvation, that Salvation still needs to be maintained by works.

>>581781

I think this is a good reason why sola scriptura is so important. Here anon is, basically admitting primitive support for sola fide, but the "apostolic churches" have still always held they exact same position because they claim to do so. Basically, rejecting sola scriptura gives you free reign to believe any innovation you want since it gets rid of the relevance of that pesky objective standard.

>>581770

Chapter 33-35

The author is indeed correct that Clement is anxious to prevent any understandings that may lead to antinomialism. In fact his introduction here would be one Catholics could easily agree with especially the judgement by works mentioned as means to avoid any implication of his previously stated justification by faith. Even stating that the need for works are to "make calling and election sure" does not really pose a problem for Catholics. After all the citation of 2 Peter 1:5-10 even opens up the real possibility of falling away as v9 indicates stating that "hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins" and the concern over not being fruitful in Christ. One may perhaps argue that it does not speak of the Saved who is not fruitful as not being damned, only blinded and unfruitful but to do this is to make the act of forgetting that one had been purged of his old sins through Christ to be of little consequence.

Putting Ingolfsland's use of 2 Peter aside, what is clear is Chapter 35 would reinforce the notion of what would happen if one would slip and seek the things which are hateful to God, that is to be reproved by Him and thus further compliments the notion that works would be needed to maintain Salvation. So in essence, nothing that would make Clement one who subscribes to Sola Fide is to be found here as the explanations for compatibility with Paul is readily acceptable to Catholics.

Chapter 57-58

Here, Ingolfsland makes an accurate assessment that in the NT, the NT strongly links "faith and works together". No question here. Belief and behaviour belong together but this really does mean that there is nothing much that would make his defence of Clement of Rome being a Sola Fideist solid, as many points can just as easily be accepted by Catholics. So how does it really make Clement one who accepts the Reformation doctrine of sola fide? As faith and works are closely linked and it would seem that even the author accepts that there are instances where Clement speaks of judgement by works and not just that in the sense of chastisement. While a Lutheran form of sola fide may help explain this, a Calvinistic form just do not cut it. After all, works still do play a role in Salvation even in the author's own explanation of it, and a believer must to Clement strive in obedience which itself is intimate with what faith is to him.

Wait do some really teach that faith without works is saving? This is totally and obviously wrong. If you have the opportunity to do God's will, a lively faith will do it, and it may be a sin if you don't.

If they think faith makes works optional, that's a BLATANT contradiction of James 2! Do some really teach this? I've heard of that whole works before man/faith before God formulation but that's clearly not correct.

I think the 39 articles formulation gets it right:

XI. Of the Justification of Man.

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

XII. Of Good Works.

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

>>581782

>>581799

>>581821

>>581831

Here, I explain why the author fails at his task.

It should also be of note that Clement's soteriology certainly cannot reduce the role and place of works to where it has no basis in Salvation as how one acts would certainly play into this besides the acts of obedience being part of what "faith" is as in they express it, Chapter 46 makes clear that the situation of strive and schism amongst the Corinthians has caused the faith of many to be subverted. There, Clement further exemplifies the need of works to maintain Salvation as to him Christians, being Elect are to cleave on to the innocent and righteous. The fact that divisions and turmoil happened amongst them is seen as madness and something that is contrary to what the Elect portion ought to be which is a grave matter and one salvific in significance. Such is, considering that Clement concludes this chapter by citing the Gospels that it is better for a man through which offences come not be born than to be a stumbling block to the Elect.

>>581827

>Every Apostolic Church has maintained the same understanding on the great majority of theological points from the Early Church to 2 millennia later despite being in schism for half or more of that history

>Protestantism comes along a millennia and half after with sola scriptura and rubbishes all that, elevating personal, subjective interpretation above the authority of the Church, her Doctors and the Tradition they have preserved

>As a logical consequence of this doctrine, it splinters off into scores of different denominations, with the rifts that had been present from the earliest days deepening to the point that the idea of Protestants being able to reach a consensus on even a handful of doctrines is genuinely laughable

<It's Tradition that's the problem though

>>581827

But Clement was a part of many early canons!

pray for him

>>581781

>And arguing with you about this is a waste of time, just like arguing over a certain theme in Shakespeare's Macbeth would be.

>nah man you misinterpreted it, what he really means is this and this, see line this and this

>ad infinitum

See the problem here is you haven't actually proven that, because of this, it means one person cannot be objectively right. It's just a cop-out excuse to leave it to someone else because you do not so much seek to find the truth as you want to be able to win arguments. So while I can understand this concern, it isn't actually a waste of time. Even if someone stubbornly holds the truth in unrighteousness to the very end, the truth was still given a hearing.

>>581827

>since it gets rid of the relevance of that pesky objective standard.

They've almost gotten rid of Scripture at some points, probably gotten very close, but never quite could get rid of the word of God.

>>581832

>Wait do some really teach that faith without works is saving?

Yes, and James 2 is about justification before man. Talk to me about it sometime.

I think the overall problem can be characterized as an inability for the natural man to count those things which are not seen as really existing, so the only way for them to see faith as anything real is to tie it down or rather equate it to good works, which are the evidence of faith but not the faith itself, but they effectively redefine certain works as "not really works in the Biblical sense, but faith actually." It's just changing the meaning of language itself to fit that into Scripture when the original meaning makes it clear they are separate things. And any attempt to rectify this with Scripture is met with antinomianism due to the inability to see faith as anything real by itself.

>>581770

You won't get an appropriate answer, just whiny and avoiding the issue. If you want a working example take their statements of "the church never changes its stances!", then compare that to the list of "used to be" heresies or beliefs that can be traced to after the church already existed.

>every building legalism

>traditions of men

>>581834

Underrated post. Aside from the Filioque, which was only inserted into the Creed as a safeguard against 9th century Arianism in Spain, and was hence added to preserve tradition rather than destroy it (no matter what your perspective on its validity is) the theological differences really aren't as different as we like to think when people are thrashing it out in the Catholic vs Orthodox threads. No matter our differences, we have to feel some warm solidarity when we look at the 30,000 protestant denominations in the world today and the vast doctrinal and theological abysses which exist between them.

>>581993

>ignoring the thread is convenient to me so that I may post with a false aura of innocence

Watch as this goes without reply, or even worse, we get a repetition of "but what's written here doesn't mean what it says"

Your life is a joke, anon