/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>753708

What does this matter in practice?

Serious question. What does it change if you are right?

>>753708

>From this, it's obviously clear that Peter decreed faith is sufficient for salvation.

We are made righteous by faith, not by works =/= faith on its own is sufficient. True faith gives us good works, the very works by which we will be judged. Faith makes us righteous (justifies us) -but- this faith must beget good works, and good works are not a mere proof of true faith but are meriting in themselves. "Faith" that does not give good works is not true faith and does not justify.

James literally addressed the issue, you might want to check him out.

>So if you follow this flawless logic, you'll understand that any pope who declares that faith isn't sufficient for salvation then his words is non-authoritative as he is an antipope, which the reformers tried to warn the Vatican about so we can return to the only, true, church teaching on faith!

And what happens if papal infallibility does not exist but monergism is also false? I strongly doubt you're not aware that Eastern Orthodoxy exists so I very much suspect you made this as a shitpost, rather than being interested in genuine dialogue.

By the way, I will add that from my understanding, Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all agree on the order of grace -> faith -> works. Protestants disagree with the former two, however, on whether works are meriting and strengthen faith themselves, and also on whether one can reject God's grace if it is offered to them (and, consequentially, who is God's grace offered to exactly). So citing the epistles of St. Peter and St. Clement of Rome is not exactly the one-shot move you seem to think it is, as no one would deny the primacy of faith, I think.

They follow Augustinian Catholicism. Which is still in error. And Augustine is not Apostolic. He was a sincere saint, but with some false ideas, isolated from the wealth of the church (he admitted himself he couldn't read the Greek fathers, and submitted his work on the Trinity for the rest of the Church to judge. He didn't expect to be the sole axis of the West).

It doesn't make them better. Just slightly more simplified than their Thomist counterparts, but with the same awful core ideas.

>>753738

Yet we still call him a saint as Orthodox Christians. Yes, Augustine was in error, but the Catholic Church admits this (probably one of the only good things to come out of Vatican II was it’s attempt to get back to pre-schism theology), and honestly there are bigger problems at work within Catholicism and Lutheranism then their idea of faith as sole justifier.

That being said, >>753708, Luther took his idea of Faith too far, to the point he deemed several of the General epistles as Deuterocanonical and “epistles of straw”.

What I genuinely don't understand what protestants even think that faith is that they can claim it ALONE saves? What do they think when Peter says that one who falls back into sin after repenting is in an even worse state than when he was completely without faith (2 Peter 2:20-22), when Paul says to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, and when the Holy Spirit himself left the faithful Sapphira and Annanias at Peter's behest to warn them of the wages of sin? Unless your definition of faith extends to a godly disposition, aka charity, then sola fide is clearly indefensible, because if faith consists simply in calling "Lord Lord", and not doing the will of your father in truly turning away from sin, then your definition of faith is patently unbiblical.

>They follow Augustinian Catholicism

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by this other than anti-pelagian, which both denominations have always been, and thoroughly catholic in regards to Rome, which one always has been and one never was.

>>754034

>They follow Augustinian Catholicism

There's no such as thing as an anti-Augustinian Orthodox either, they reject a lot of what he says, but he is still a revered and acknowledged Saint.

>>753797

>Yes, Augustine was in error, but the Catholic Church admits this

No, the Catholic Church never said that St. Augustine was in error, and despite the acerbic anti-Latin autism in the orthodox, they never explicitly rejected everything Augustine wrote either.

It'd be easier for the orthodox to just reject St. Augustine altogether, but they have to suffer the burden of having one of the greatest theologians and Church Father be part of their canon.

>>753738

>isolated from the wealth of the church (he admitted himself he couldn't read the Greek fathers

being "isolated from the Greeks" is not a reasonable criteria for rejection

>>753708

Except, 1Clement does not tell us whether this justification by faith alone is forensic like the Reformers or depend on some declarative imputed righteousness. All is said is there is no merit in justification which guess what? Catholicism always accepted, to the point the phrase "sola fide" is even used sometimes. The reason why no one takes issue when those Catholics use "sola fide" is because it is understood that some forensic imputed righteousness is not presupposed from this, nor is any concept of final justification on the basis of works excluded.

Even worse, 1Clement does not follow what the Reformers think of "faith". Why? It's because 1Clement states earlier that Abraham was found faithful insofar as he was obedient to God. In fact let's not even use that and be more gentle, following the Lightfoot translation

>1Clem 10:1-Abraham, who was called the 'friend,' was found faithful in that he rendered obedience unto the words of God.

To the Reformers, faith and faithfulness or the acts that flow from faith are not synonymous. It's a "sine qua non" consequence of being justified. But that is not how Clement describes Abraham being found faithful.

And how does Clement consider love covering a magnitude of sins? Let's find out:

>1Clem 49:5-Love joineth us unto God; love covereth a multitude of sins; love endureth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing coarse, nothing arrogant in love. Love hath no divisions, love maketh no seditions, love doeth all things in concord. In love were all the elect of God made perfect; without love nothing is well pleasing to God:

>1Clem 49:6-in love the Master took us unto Himself; for the love which He had toward us, Jesus Christ our Lord hath given His blood for us by the will of God, and His flesh for our flesh and His life for our lives.

>1Clem 50:1-Ye see, dearly beloved, how great and marvelous a thing is love, and there is no declaring its perfection.

>1Clem 50:2-Who is sufficient to be found therein, save those to whom God shall vouchsafe it? Let us therefore entreat and ask of His mercy, that we may be found blameless in love, standing apart from the factiousness

of men. All the generations from Adam unto this day have passed away: but they that by God's grace were perfected in love dwell in the abode of the pious; and they shall be made manifest in the visitation of the Kingdom of God.

>1Clem 50:3-For it is written; Enter into the closet for a very little while until Mine anger and Mine wrath shall pass away, and I will remember a good day and will raise you from your tombs.

>1Clem 50:4-Blessed were we, dearly beloved, if we should be doing the commandments of God in concord of love, to the end that our sins may through love be forgiven us.

>1Clem 50:5-For it is written; Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall impute no sin, neither is guile in his mouth.

>1Clem 50:6-This declaration of blessedness was pronounced upon them that have been elected by God through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

So there is some interplay between human asking for mercy so that they can be found "blameless in love" which give a human component to "love covering a magnitude of sins", particularly since sins can be forgiven by doing the commandments of God in love?

That is not how the Reformers see it

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

>>754321

And of course let's see what the context is when 1Clement speaks of justification by faith. We will see it simply means that the works one does is done because of God's will and hence men should not boast. It occurs in a context discussing humility

>1Clem 31:4-Jacob with HUMILITY departed from his land because of his brother, and went unto Laban and served; and the twelve tribes of Israel were given unto him.

>1Clem 32:1-If any man will consider them one by one in sincerity, he shall understand the magnificence of the gifts that are given by Him.

>1Clem 32:2-For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who minister unto the altar of God; of him is the Lord Jesus as concerning the flesh; of him are kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah; yea and the rest of his tribes are held in no small honor, seeing that God promised saying, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.

>1Clem 32:3-They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, but THROUGH HIS WILL

>1Clem 32:4-And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Clearly Jacob and those priests and Abraham also acted out their faith and possess humility to know that what blessings and rewards they have is not because of their effort. But that doesnt mean they were just passive and moved but because of God's Grace and work through them that they can do such things which they trust in. This is nothing saying works bad or dont contribute to Salvation at all. Which is why later on he says

>1Clem 34:1-The good workman receiveth the bread of his work with boldness, but the slothful and careless dareth not look his employer in the face.

>1Clem 34:2-It is therefore needful that we should be zealous unto well doing, for of Him are all things:

>1Clem 34:3-since He forewarneth us saying, Behold, the Lord, and His reward is before His face, to recompense each man according to his work.

>1Clem 34:4-He exhorteth us therefore to believe on Him with our whole heart, and to be not idle nor careless unto every good work.

>>754037

I didn’t say Augustine was wrong on everything, far from it most of what he wrote was amazing and fully in line with the church. And what he believed about salvation, even if not inline with the rest of the church, did not condemn him to hell. However, people taking his words so far as to distort the faith, like Calvin did, did lead many people to stray from the Apostolic faith and into heresy.

>>754037

>There's no such as thing as an anti-Augustinian Orthodox either, they reject a lot of what he says, but he is still a revered and acknowledged Saint.

I'm not anti-Augustinian. It's just a bad idea to hinge on central figures (be it Augustine, Aquinas, or Popes… or Calvin, Luther, etc). That's why Orthodox only follows the ecumenical councils.

Augustine's teachings aren't entirely his fault anyhow. 1) he had a bad pre-Jerome translate of the Latin scriptures. 2) he followed Origen a bit too much, especially on Divine Simplicity (all Catholics sadly do). This is the root of all of their awful teachings. And Origen isn't a saint. He's proto-gnostic gibberish.

>>754417

>Augustine's teachings aren't entirely his fault anyhow.

>1) he had a bad pre-Jerome translate of the Latin scriptures.

Meh partially true, although this didn't make him getting in error.

>2) he followed Origen a bit too much, especially on Divine Simplicity (all Catholics sadly do). This is the root of all of their awful teachings.

<God is not simple. He has internal divisions.

The state of orthodox theology.

And besides St. Augustine shits on Origen anyway. He says so in The City of God.

>And Origen isn't a saint. He's proto-gnostic gibberish.

True. Pre existance of the souls plus the denial of the eternal punishment of hell was the nail in the coffin for him. Even St. Gregory of Nissan (I guess its this one) fell for the meme that hell wasn't eternal.

>>753708

When you talk about Apostolic Christianity you can't just disregard the Copts, the Syrians, the Greeks ie the other Churches founded by the Apostles. All of these Churches have never, ever taught sola fide. And these Churches agree on 99% of theology, but you prots act like Rome invented everything.

Think Rome invented the Assumption of our Lady? Guess, what, the Copts even have the full story of what exactly happened. But nooo, Rome invented that teaching. Etc.

Which reformers? They disagree with one another on many major points.

This is stupid, false, and intellectually dishonest. Sage

>he actually believes salvation comes from justifying grace and not sanctifying grace

Protestants aren't saved.