/christianity/ - Christian Theology

>>5133

What do you think sola scriptura means?

>>5134

that scripture alone is sufficient for salvation without traditions etc.

all well and good but it's unlikely considering that Paul is asking us to hold fast to traditions and oral statements of the church fathers

Which traditions were taught by oral statement then? And why would the disciples teach oral traditions that go against the written traditions of the Bible? Believers of sola scriptura don't hate all tradition, we just don't think doctrine should come from man-made traditions, but instead it should come only from the written word of God. Read 2 Timothy 3:16-17, specifically verse 17. Through scripture, the man of God is made perfect, equipped for every good work. No extra tradition necessary.

>>5136

How do your proof texts disprove the idea that scripture alone is sufficient for salvation, even if that were the accurate definition of sola scriptura?

>>5139

because scripture itself is telling us to hold fast to traditions and oral statements of church fathers. . . why would it do that if it were all you needed - wouldn't it say something more to the lines of "scripture is all you need, ignore all that other stuff"

>>5140

2 Timothy 3:16-17

>>5140

That doesn't answer the question, but let's move on since that was really a rabbit trail.

Sola scriptura is a poetic rallying cry of the Reformation. It means that only scripture can be used as an ultimate authority, not that only scripture is useful in the Christian life. Luther called it the norma normans non normata, the norm of noms which cannot be normed.

The related doctrine that you mean to be attacking is the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture. This says that scripture is sufficient to thoroughly equip the Christian for every good work, so not contingent on an extra tradition. This also does not fall to your strawman though, because there's not a supporter of this doctrine who doesn't also recognize the supplementary value of good traditions; the doctrine only says that they are not sufficient.

Anyway in your conception, how is scripture not sufficient for salvation? The gospel is a verbal message.

>>5143

>the doctrine only says that they are not sufficient.

That should say "the doctrine says they (extra traditions) aren't basically necessary, even if valuable"

Illustration: a cookbook fully equips you to make every recipe in the book, but your mom's advice can still help

>>5145

Wrong. Protestants must reject most of the ante nicene texts

>>5150

No, we dont

bait thread

>>5151

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xvii.html

Chapter XVII.—The Christians are refused Polycarp’s body.

But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive463 nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors464 of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, “lest,” said he, “forsaking Him 43that was crucified, they begin to worship this one.” This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners465), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary466 affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions467 and fellow-disciples!

463    Literally, “greatness.”

464    The Greek, literally translated, is, “and to have fellowship with his holy flesh.”

465    This clause is omitted by Eusebius: it was probably interpolated by some transcriber, who had in his mind 1 Pet. iii. 18.

466    Literally, “unsurpassable.”

467    Literally, “fellow-partakers.”

Yes you do

Another example from Polycarp:

Chapter X.—Exhortation to the practice of virtue.391

Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood,392 and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because “alms delivers from death.”393 Be all of you subject one to another394 “having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles,”395 that ye may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed!396 Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct.

391    This and the two following chapters are preserved only in a Latin version. [See Jacobson, ad loc.]

392    Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 17.

393    Tobit iv. 10, Tobit xii. 9.

394    Comp. 1 Pet. v. 5.

395    1 Pet. ii. 12.

396    Isa. lii. 5.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.x.html

Here Polycarp cites Tobit saying that almsgiving delivers from death. It is cited as Scripture and shows a theology of atoning almsgiving. That is incompatible with Protestant Sola Fide! This is made clearer when Polycarp later says good works shown to the Gentiles are not just merely the Prot excuse of works as merely before men, but so that God is not blasphemed. Those who blasphemed God, woe to him!

>>5167

If this isnt clear enough, let the near end tell you even more clearly:

Chapter XII.—Exhortation to various graces.

For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted.404 It is declared then in these Scriptures, “Be ye angry, and sin not,”405 and, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.”406 Happy is he who remembers407 this, which I believe to be the case with you. But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord36Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who “raised Him from the dead.”408 Pray for all the saints. Pray also for kings,409 and potentates, and princes, and for those that persecute and hate you,410 and for the enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest to all, and that ye may be perfect in Him.

404    This passage is very obscure. Some render it as follows: “But at present it is not granted unto me to practise that which is written, Be ye angry,” etc.

405    Ps. iv. 5.

406    Eph. iv. 26.

407    Some read, “believes.”

408    Gal. i. 1.

409    Comp. 1 Tim. ii. 2.

410    Matt. v. 44.

To have a lot amongst God's saints, God must build them up with patience, forebearance, purity and gentleness. Those are necessary and those type of active works were enjoined earlier for the disciples to do. These arent merely "evidence" one is Saved, but a required phase to be alocated a lot in God

>>5166

here we go again

Public warning: do not engage this guy. He is a rambling ideologue and you will get nowhere.

>>5171

>not an argument

You are just in hatred of truth and evidence. You cannot be honest and just admit the early Christians are merely just given lip service in your system.

>>5171

I've got to give him credit though: whenever he cuts loose, our board rank seems to skyrocket.

>>5171

This. The Dude can barely speak English and just spams quotations from cherry picked scholars(if you look hard enough, you can find a scholar in any field that supports literally any position you can think of) which he likely doesn't even understand.

>>5179

And yet what I quoted are both the Fathers and scholars who are Protestant. You cannot even provide proof for your claim here or back up your assertion. Only to assert it is mere cherrypicking and provide nothing to show why that is. The reason now is simple, you are dishonest and unable to face the truth

>>5166

Desiring to bury the body of some holy person doesn't require idolatry. Read the OT for various examples of such.

>but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love

>love

Note how it's not worship. Really makes you think.

>>5167

>quotation from apocrypha

Doesn't have scriptural authority.

>otherwise just saying to act well so as to not give the Lord a bad name

Nothing there either.

>>5168

>But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith…

Seems like God causes faith there. Hmm…

>may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father…

>who shall believe

That's all.

>Pray for all the saints

Yes. You should, in fact, pray for Christians. Wow. Very novel idea for protestants.

>>5170

>And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28)

>That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:30)

No wonder the apostles have a special authority

Since we're going to play the "spam walls of text in hopes that no one is autistic enough to read through anything I said" game.

Clement of Rome on Justification by Faith

''Let us unfold the tale of the ancient past. Why was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he acted in righteousness and truth, prompted by faith? Isaac, fully realizing what was going to happen, gladly let himself be led to sacrifice. In humility Jacob quit his homeland because of his brother. He went to Laban and became his slave, and to him there were given the twelve scepters of the tribes of Israel. And if anyone will candidly look into each example, he will realize the magnificence of the gifts God gives.

For from Jacob there came all the priests and the Levites who serve at God's altar. From him comes the Lord Jesus so far as his human nature goes. From him there come the kings and rulers and governors of Judah. Nor is the glory of the other tribes derived from him insignificant. For God promised that "your seed shall be as the stars of heaven." So all of them received honor and greatness, not through themselves or their own deeds or the right things they did, but through his will.

And we, therefore, who by his will have been called in Jesus Christ, are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight or religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen.''

Irenaeus on the Clarity of Scripture

These things fall plainly under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures…The entire Scriptures - the Prophets and the Gospels - can be clearly, unambiguously and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them.

The Epistle to Diognetus on the "Happy Exchange" Which Justifies the Ungodly

…when our iniquity had been fully accomplished, and it had been made perfectly manifest that punishment and death were expected as its recompense, and the season came which God had ordained, when henceforth He should manifest His goodness and power (O the exceeding great kindness and love of God), He hated us not, neither rejected us, nor bore us malice, but was long-suffering and patient, and in pity for us took upon Himself our sins, and Himself parted with His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy for the lawless, the guileless for the evil, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal.

''For what else but His righteousness would have covered our sins?

In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? O sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessing, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous man, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners!''

Chrysostom on How the Thief on the Cross was Justified by Faith Alone, and Not Faith Plus Works

Let us see, however, whether the brigand gave evidence of effort and upright deeds and a good yield. Far from his being able to claim even this, he made his way into paradise before the apostles with a mere word, on the basis of faith alone, the intention being for you to learn that it was not so much a case of his sound values prevailing as the Lord's lovingkindness being completely responsible.

What, in fact, did the brigand say? What did he do? Did he fast? Did he weep? Did he tear his garments? Did he display repentance in good time? Not at all: on the cross itself after his utterance he won salvation. Note the rapidity: from cross to heaven, from condemnation to salvation. What were those wonderful words, then? What great power did they have that they brought him such marvelous good things? "Remember me in your kingdom." What sort of word is that? He asked to receive good things, he showed no concern for them in action; but the one who knew his heart paid attention not to the words but to the attitude of mind.

Augustine on Matthew 16:13ff

Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He's the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On hearing this, Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you…‘You are Peter (rocky), and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter (rocky), we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.

For Augustine here, the rock upon which Christ founded the church is not the man Peter but his confession of faith, which is representative of the faith of the church as a whole in Christ.

In addition to this, the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18:19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. Therefore he grants the keys principally and immediately to the Church, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to every one who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: Tell it unto the Church.]

However, as to the declaration: Upon this rock I will build My Church, certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of man, but upon the ministry of the confession which Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He accordingly addresses him as a minister: Upon this rock, i.e., upon this ministry. [Therefore he addresses him as a minister of this office in which this confession and doctrine is to be in operation and says: Upon this rock, i.e., this preaching and ministry.]

Furthermore, the ministry of the New Testament is not bound to places and persons as the Levitical ministry, but it is dispersed throughout the whole world, and is there where God gives His gifts, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers; neither does this ministry avail on account of the authority of any person, but on account of the Word given by Christ. [Nor does the person of a teacher add anything to this word and office; it matters not who is preaching and teaching it; if there are hearts who receive and cling to it, to them it is done as they hear and believe.] And in this way, not as referring to the person of Peter, most of the holy Fathers, as Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, 28] Hilary, and Bede, interpret this passage: Upon this rock. Chrysostom says thus: "Upon this rock," not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Hilary says: To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, "Thou art the Son of the living God." Therefore the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church.

The Catholicity of "Faith Alone"

"At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223."

Joseph A. Fitzmyer: Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, 1993, 360-361.

>>5182

>Desiring to bury the body of some holy person doesn't require idolatry. Read the OT for various examples of such.

This ignores the Greek of "possessed" which I included from the translator for a reason. Because it shows that the Christians desire to have fellowship with Polycarp's Holy Flesh. In fact Koinomia, used here can also mean "participation" just as how in the Eucharist one participates in Christ. This entails more than just them wanting to bury Polycarp. Had this been what the text wants to convey, it would not have bothered to used the term "koinomia" and then specify the remains as holy.

>>otherwise just saying to act well so as to not give the Lord a bad name

>Nothing there either.

This shows projection into the text.Why? Because Polycarp immediately says after "Woe" to those who blaspheme the name of God. Indicating that to not act rightly, is to incur judgement from God which makes sense with his citation of Tobit in the manner of Scripture.

>Seems like God causes faith there. Hmm…

Which guess what? Papists like Aquinas also believe. So this is insufficient. This is why I did not bother with that in the first place

>who shall believe

>That's all.

Ignoring the very process of cultivating meekness, perseverance and purity attached to that. Combined with what is said earlier, the implications is conduct matters

>Yes. You should, in fact, pray for Christians. Wow. Very novel idea for protestants.

And a strawman because nowhere did I said Protestants dont do this, nor did I say this point proves Polycarp contradicts Sola Fide. It's the fact of preseverence, purity and meekness slightly earlier that I noted. Good job.

>And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28)

>That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:30)

>No wonder the apostles have a special authority

Non argument. Because Protestants dont consider the Apostles' authority as active at all in the church, Ignatius does through the ministry of the clergy. Even worse, no Protestant will consider that the Apostles somehow possess some transcendent quasidivine notion of authority as some Heavenly Sanderin that is active. My point still stands

>

>

Jaroslav Pelikan on the Catholicity of the Lutheran Reformation

'Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition. That was eminently true of the central Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone…That the ground of our salvation is the unearned favor of God in Christ, and that all we need do to obtain it is to trust that favor – this was the confession of great catholic saints and teachers…Rome’s reactions [to the Protestant reformers] were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone – a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers – Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted(justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition.'

Vincent of Lerins on the Primacy and Sufficiency of Scripture

"A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.

[4.] I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

Aquinas on Scripture, Doctrine and Conscience

"The precepts of the Law, which man is bound to fulfil, concern acts of virtue which are the means of attaining salvation. Now an act of virtue, as stated above (Q[60], A[5]) depends on the relation of the habit to its object. Again two things may be considered in the object of any virtue; namely, that which is the proper and direct object of that virtue, and that which is accidental and consequent to the object properly so called. Thus it belongs properly and directly to the object of fortitude, to face the dangers of death, and to charge at the foe with danger to oneself, for the sake of the common good: yet that, in a just war, a man be armed, or strike another with his sword, and so forth, is reduced to the object of fortitude, but indirectly.

Accordingly, just as a virtuous act is required for the fulfilment of a precept, so is it necessary that the virtuous act should terminate in its proper and direct object: but, on the other hand, the fulfilment of the precept does not require that a virtuous act should terminate in those things which have an accidental or secondary relation to the proper and direct object of that virtue, except in certain places and at certain times. We must, therefore, say that the direct object of faith is that whereby man is made one of the Blessed, as stated above (Q[1], A[8]): while the indirect and secondary object comprises all things delivered by God to us in Holy Writ, for instance that Abraham had two sons, that David was the son of Jesse, and so forth.

Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith, man is bound to believe them, just as he is bound to have faith; but as to other points of faith, man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready to believe them, in so far as he is prepared to believe whatever is contained in the Divine Scriptures. Then alone is he bound to believe such things explicitly, when it is clear to him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith"

Jerome on the Authority of Scripture

""That which does not have authority from the scriptures we can as easily despise as approve."

Basil the Great on the Authority of Scripture

I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

Basil the Great (330 - 379), Letter to Eustathius the Physician, written circa 374-375; NPNF Series II, Vol. VIII:229.

This letter to Eustathius the Physician was written in the midst of Basil's conflict with another Eustathius, Eustathius of Sebaste, a bishop with Arian sympathies.

This is an interesting quotation for several reasons. Firstly, Basil clearly appeals to scripture, and not custom, as the judge in this doctrinal dispute - note well, then, that Basil must therefore have had confidence in scripture's clarity and ability to function as a judge. Secondly, he alludes to "the vote of truth" being cast; this is possibly just a figure of speech, referring to Basil's confidence that his position will be vindicated in the judgment of the Christian public because it is based on scripture, but it could also refer to the hope that a synod would resolve the dispute. And thirdly, it is particularly interesting that Basil here appears to contradict a famous passage from his On the Holy Spirit which is often quoted in support of unwritten tradition as a source of doctrine and practice. Thus there is either an inconsistency in Basil's thought, or he has been misunderstood; this is a question I hope to explore more fully in the future.

What was the question under dispute? Basil writes: "Two points are advanced at one and the same time in the accusations levelled against me. I am accused on the one hand of parting the hypostases asunder; on the other of never using in the plural any one of the nouns relating to the Divinity, but of always speaking in the singular number of one Goodness, as I have already said; of one Power; one Godhead; and so on."

Basil follows with an exposition of pertinent scripture passages.

Leonard Verduin wrote:

"In fact, a chorus of protest resounds across the ages, contesting all that feeds the idea of salvation by sacramental manipulation, and sustaining all that which belongs with the formula of salvation by believing response to the preached Word….In the year 1025 some 'heretics' were located in the vicinity of Liege…They said that 'There are no sacraments in the holy Church by which one can attain unto salvation.'" (RTS, 142-143)

Thomas Scheck argues that there were people in Origen's day who believed in some form of justification through faith alone. Though Origen rejected their view, he considered them Christians:

"With believers in mind he [Origen] rejects the view that justification is by faith alone, apparently because certain Christians were denying a future judgment based upon works….In 8.2 Origen again shows awareness of persons who do not seem to be heretics, but who do not understand the inextricable link between faith and good works. He refers to them as he expounds Rom 10.9, where it is evident that Origen rejects their theology, insisting that belief in Christ's resurrection and public confession of his lordship profits one nothing if his resurrection is not realized in the life of the believer….Gnostic and even some Christian exegetes used the 'faith alone' formulation to deny the doctrine of a future judgment according to works, but Origen repudiates this tactic." (COR, 34-35, 38)

D.H. Williams comments:

"The doctrine of justification by faith did not originate in the period of the Reformation, nor is the teaching a unique emblem of Protestantism. Evangelical scholars Timothy George and Thomas Oden have rightly observed that justification by faith was not a new teaching invented by the Reformers. Apart from New Testament documents, justification by faith finds its roots in the early church. Stated positively, the exegesis of justification by faith is a catholic and pre-Reformation teaching, and the Reformers themselves found precedents for this teaching in the early fathers, even as they went in new directions with these ideas." (EVT, 129)

Similar comments have been made by many other scholars.

Sometimes what's being addressed is a particular strand of thought within pre-Reformation sources that was accompanied by other views, sometimes inconsistently. Patristic scholars and others who work in relevant fields often note that these sources were inconsistent or sometimes only partially agreed with the Protestant concepts in question. Karlfried Froehlich refers to "all kinds of combinations between Augustinian, Thomist, Scotist, and nominalist elements" in medieval sources (JBF, 160). Robert Eno refers to how Origen is "not an easy author to interpret" and "less orderly and consistent" (JBF, 112) than other sources. Similar comments are often made in the scholarly literature about other pre-Reformation sources as well. In some cases, these men acknowledged their own inconsistencies. Augustine, for example, often acknowledged that he had changed his position over time on some theological issues. And scholars note his inconsistencies even where he doesn't admit them. Citing an inconsistency with Protestant belief in one portion of a church father's writings doesn't prove that he never agreed with that belief elsewhere.

>>5184

Clement of Rome

1)What is Faith to Clement

Chapter XII.—The rewards of faith and hospitality. Rahab.

On account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved. For when spies were sent by Joshua, the son of Nun, to Jericho, the king of the country ascertained that they were come to spy out their land, and sent men to seize them, in order that, when taken, they might be put to death. But the hospitable Rahab receiving them, concealed them on the roof of her house under some stalks of flax. And when the men sent by the king arrived and said “There came men unto thee who are to spy out our land; bring them forth, for so the king commands,” she answered them, “The two men whom ye seek came unto me, but quickly departed again and are gone,” thus not discovering the spies to them. Then she said to the men, “I know assuredly that the Lord your God hath given you this city, for the fear and dread of you have fallen on its inhabitants. When therefore ye shall have taken it, keep ye me and the house of my father in safety.” And they said to her, “It shall be as thou hast spoken to us. As soon, therefore, as thou knowest that we are at hand, thou shalt gather all thy family under thy roof, and they shall be preserved, but all that are found outside of thy dwelling shall perish.”53 Moreover, they gave her a sign to this effect, that she should hang forth from her house a scarlet thread. And thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord to all them that believe and hope in God.54 Ye see, beloved, that there was not only faith, but prophecy, in this woman.

Notice here that in every instance of Old Testament examples of faith given, the form of faith is active. Rahab's hospitality to the spies is mentioned, not Rahab's assent or mere act of a one time belief. It is acted belief. This is examplified in the chapter right before Clement says that people are not justified by anything of their own, again saying nothing about Protestant sola fide because anyone can simply just follow Catholic predestinarians on this.

Chapter XXXI.—Let us see by what means we may obtain the divine blessing.

Let us cleave then to His blessing, and consider what are the means124 of possessing it. Let us think125 over the things which have taken place from the beginning. For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?126 Isaac, with perfect confidence, as if knowing what was to happen,127 cheerfully yielded himself as a sacrifice.128 Jacob, through reason129 of his brother, went forth with humility from his own land, and came to Laban and served him; and there was given to him the sceptre of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Here notice how Abraham's righteousness through faith is emphasized here but earlier a description of his faithfulness is insofar as he is found obedient. Taking that to mean utter passive faith and not active, negates what Clement means which he further presses with the example of Issac who yielded himself as sacrifice(acting faith) and also Jacob's humility. Humility is the reason for why justification isnt by works but by God

And lastly, for now anyways because it's getting late, here's a three hour video of a catholic-turned-evangelical scholar discussing how the roman church is at odds with the early church. If you don't watch this entire video and respond to every word said in it, you are dishonest and afraid to face the truth.

>>5190

Chapter XXXIV.—Great is the reward of good works with God. Joined together in harmony, let us implore that reward from Him.

The good servant139 receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: “Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.”140 He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this,141 that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will. Let us consider the whole multitude of His angels, how they stand ever ready to minister to His will. For the Scripture saith, “Ten thousand times ten thousand stood around Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him,142 and cried, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the Lord of Sabaoth; the whole creation is full of His glory.”143 And let us therefore, conscientiously gathering together in harmony, cry to Him earnestly, as with one mouth, that we may be made partakers of His great and glorious promises. For [the Scripture] saith, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which He hath prepared for them that wait for Him.”144

Two chapters after Clement's statement on justification is ignored by Protestants. Here we see that a worker who is lazy cannot look his employer in the face.God renders to every person in accordance to good works.

Clement of Rome against sola fide

Chapter L.—Let us pray to be thought worthy of love.

Ye see, beloved, how great and wonderful a thing is love, and that there is no declaring its perfection. Who is fit to be found in it, except such as God has vouchsafed to render so? Let us pray, therefore, and implore of His mercy, that we may live blameless in love, free from all human partialities for one above another. All the generations from Adam even unto this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the revelation224of the kingdom of Christ. For it is written, “Enter into thy secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away; and I will remember a propitious225day, and will raise you up out of your graves.”226Blessed are we, beloved, if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love; that so through love our sins may be forgiven us. For it is written, “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin19the Lord will not impute to him, and in whose mouth there is no guile.”227This blessedness cometh upon those who have been chosen by God through Jesus Christ our Lord; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

>christian love can now forgive sin. Definitely not sola fide

>>5192

Clement of Rome against Sola Fide

Chapter XIV.—We should obey God rather than the authors of sedition.

It is right and holy therefore, men and brethren, rather to obey God than to follow those who, through pride and sedition, have become the leaders of a detestable emulation. For we shall incur no slight injury, but rather great danger, if we rashly yield ourselves to the inclinations of men who aim at exciting strife and tumults, so as to draw us away from what is good. Let us be kind one to another after the pattern of the tender mercy and benignity of our Creator. For it is written, “The kind-hearted shall inhabit the land, and the guiltless shall be left upon it, but transgressors shall be destroyed from off the face of it.”58And again [the Scripture] saith, “I saw the ungodly highly exalted, and lifted up like the cedars of Lebanon: I passed by, and, behold, he was not; and I diligently sought his place, and could not find it. Preserve innocence, and look on equity: for there shall be a remnant to the peaceful man.”59

>be like God, or you will be destroyed off the face of the earth.

Not sola fide, obedience and being like God or face death is definitely not sola fide

Spam is against the rules, retaliatory or not.

Everyone stop. Get a blogspot if you want.

>>5194

You Prots demanded this. There is a reason why what I initially posted is confined narrowly and I even made clear why. It is just to show my point. Notice also how the Protestants ITT show zero familiarity with the writings. Had they do so, they know better to clarify what they quoted with other portions. But they refused and I have to do their homework for them

>>5183

>Irenaeus on the clarity of Scripture

Except of course in context Irenaeus simply uses the basic rule even Pagan literary theory uses, interpret vague passages by clearer ones which is simply basic common sense, not sola scriptura. This also ignores Irenaeus' own views on what the rule of faith is, the plot of Scriptures that is the key to it. A synopsis of a book is not the same thing as the book itself.

>The Epistle to Diognetus on the "Happy Exchange" Which Justifies the Ungodly

Except the author emphasizes God's mercy, not wrath as Reformed Calvinist Penal Substitutionary Atonement does.

>Chrysostom on How the Thief on the Cross was Justified by Faith Alone, and Not Faith Plus Works

Except, he is literally constrained. So a moot point as faith that expresses itself did so with what it could do then.

>>5184

Non argument as I never said I believe Peter is the Rock or I believe in Papal dogma

>>5185

>Catholicity of faith alone"

Except Luther's Faith Alone isnt the same as your faith alone or other Protestants faith alone.

>>5195

The more you spam or whine, the lower we value your position.

What you're doing is evangelism since this is a different gospel from what we "prots" believe, so you ought to change your posting habits. Just my two cents.

>>5185

DE PRINCIPIIS, BOOK 3 1.20 Whether it is possible for the apostle to contradict himself? And if this cannot be imagined of an apostle, how shall he appear, according to them, to be just in blaming those who committed fornication in Corinth, or those who sinned, and did not repent of their unchastity, and fornication, and uncleanness, which they had committed? How, also, does he greatly praise those who acted rightly, like the house of Onesiphorus, saying, "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he had come to Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day."[5] Now it is not consistent with apostolic gravity to blame him who is worthy of blame, i.e., who has sinned, and greatly to praise him who is deserving of praise for his good works; and again, as if it were in no one's power to do any good or evil, to say that it was the Creator's doing that every one should act virtuously or wickedly, seeing He makes one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour. And how can he add that statement, "We must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one of us may receive in his body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad? "[6] For what reward of good will be conferred on him who could not commit evil, being formed by the Creator to that very end? or what punishment will deservedly be inflicted on him who was unable to do good in consequence of the creative act of his Maker?[1] Then, again, how is not this opposed to that other declaration elsewhere, that "in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work."[4] He, accordingly, who purges himself, is made a vessel unto honour, while he who has disdained to cleanse himself from his impurity is made a vessel unto dishonour. From such declarations, in my opinion, the cause of our actions can in no degree be referred to the Creator. For God the Creator makes a certain vessel unto honour, and other vessels to dishonour; but that vessel which has cleansed itself from all impurity He makes a vessel unto honour, while that which has stained itself with the filth of vice He makes a vessel unto dishonour. The conclusion from which, accordingly, is this, that the cause of each one's actions is a pre-existing one; and then every one, according to his deserts, is made by God either a vessel unto honour or dishonour. Therefore every individual vessel has furnished to its Creator out of itself the causes and occasions of its being formed by Him to be either a vessel unto honour or one unto dishonour(ANF, Vol. 4, p. 324).

>>5198

DE PRINCIPIIS, BOOK 3 1.6 The Saviour also saying, "I say unto you, Resist not evil;"[9] and, "Whoever shall be angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment;"[10] and, "Whosoever shall look upon a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart;"[12] and in issuing certain other commands,–conveys no other meaning than this, that it is in our own power to observe what is commanded. And therefore we are rightly rendered liable to condemnation if we transgress those commandments which we are able to keep. And hence He Himself also declares: "Every one who hears my words, and doeth them, I will show to whom he is like: he is like a wise man who built his house upon a rock," etc.[1] So also the declaration: "Whoso heareth these things, and doeth them not, is like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand," etc.[3] Even the words addressed to those who are on His right hand, "Come unto Me, all ye blessed of My Father," etc.; "for I was an hungered, and ye gave Me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink,"[5] manifestly show that it depended upon themselves, that either these should be deserving of praise for doing what was commanded and receiving what was promised, or those deserving of censure who either heard or received the contrary, and to whom it was said, "Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire (Mt. 25:34, etc.)" Let us observe also, that the Apostle Paul addresses us as having power over our own will, and as possessing in ourselves the causes either of our salvation or of our ruin: "Dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and of His patience, and of His long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But, according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou art treasuring up for thyself wrath on the day of judgment and of the revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to every one according to his work: to those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and immortality, eternal life;[8] while to those who are contentious, and believe not the truth, but who believe iniquity, anger, indignation, tribulation, and distress, on every soul of man that worketh evil, on the Jew first, and (afterwards) on the Greek; but glory, and honour, and peace to every one that doeth good, to the Jew first, and (afterwards) to the Greek."[11] You will find also innumerable other passages in holy Scripture, which manifestly show that we possess freedom of will. Otherwise there would be a contrariety in commandments being given us, by observing which we may be saved, or by transgressing which we may be condemned, if the power of keeping them were not implanted in us (ANF, Vol. 4, p. 306).

>>5199

Against Jovinianus, Book 2, 22 - To the Corinthians he says: (1 Cor. 3:6-15) "I have planted, Apollos watered: but God gave the increase. So then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth: but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God, ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building." And again elsewhere: "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master-builder I laid a foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on the foundation, gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble: each man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall reveal it, because it is revealed in fire: and the fire itself shall prove each man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire." If the man whose work is burnt and is to suffer the loss of his labour, while he himself is saved, yet not without proof of fire: it follows that if a man's work remains which he has built upon the foundation, he will be saved without probation by fire, and consequently a difference is established between one degree of salvation and another (ANF, Vol. 6, p. 405).

Oops, Jerome believed in some sort of Purgatory

Against Jovianianus Book 2, 22 - As day is distinct from night, so righteousness and unrighteousness, sin and good works, Christ and Antichrist cannot blend. If we give Christ a lodging-place in our hearts, we banish the devil from thence. If we sin and the devil enter through the gate of sin, Christ will immediately withdraw. Hence David after sinning says: 2]"Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation," that is, the joy which he had lost by sinning. [3]"He who saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." Christ is called the truth: [4]"I am the way, the truth, and the life." In vain do we make our boast in him whose commandments we keep not (ANF, Vol. 6, p. 388) .

>>5185

Hilary

But perfect goodness is only a theoretical possibility, and Hilary is not certain of the condemnation of any except willful unbelievers. Evil is mingled in varying proportions with good in the character of men at large; God can detect it in the very best. All therefore need to be purified after death, if they are to escape condemnation of the Day of Judgment…All who are infected by sin, the heretic who has erred in ignorance among them The Theology of St. Hilary of Poitiers, Introduction, Chapter II, NPNF2, Vol. 9, p. xciii-iv.

Oops, some post mortem purification if one wants to escape Hell

Commentaries on the Psalms [On Ps. 64[65]:#5:

Blessed is he whom you have chosen and have taken up, that he may dwell in your tabernacles (Psalm 64:5). Indeed, all flesh will come, which is to say, we will be gathered together from every race of men: but whoever will be chosen, he is blessed. For many, according to the Gospel, are called, but few are chosen (Mt. 22:14). The elect are distinguished in their wedding garment, splendid in the pure and perfect body of the new birth. Election, therefore, is not a thing of haphazard judgment. It is a distinction made by selection based on merit. Blessed, then, is he whom God elects: blessed for the reason that he is worthy of election. Jurgens, ibid., vol. 1, #889a, p. 386

Oops, Election is based on some merit in the person.

Basil

On the Spirit, Chap. 16, 40 They, then, that were sealed by the Spirit unto the day of redemption,(7) and preserve pure anti undiminished the first fruits which they received of the Spirit, are they that shall hear the words "well done thou good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things."(8) In like manner they which have grieved the Holy Spirit by the wickedness of their ways, or have not wrought for Him that gave to them, shall be deprived of what they have received, their grace being transferred to others; or, according to one of the evangelists, they shall even be wholly cut asunder,(9)–the cutting asunder meaning complete separation from the Spirit (NPNP2, vol. 8, p. 25).

Oops, those found lacking could be wholly cut asunder and separated from the Spirit

Letter 174 - Truly blessed is the soul, which by night and by day has no other anxiety than how, when the great day comes wherein all creation shall stand before the Judge and shall give an account for its deeds, she too may be able easily to get quit of the reckoning of life. For he who keeps that day and that hour ever before him, and is ever meditating upon the defence to be made before the tribunal where no excuses will avail, will sin not at all, or not seriously, for we begin to sin when there is a lack of the fear of God in us…. Even while we are living this life in the flesh, prayer will be a mighty helper to as, and when we are departing hence it will be a sufficient provision for us on the journey to the world to come (NPNP2, vol. 8, p. 220).

Oops, judgement according to works

Ambrosiaster

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 1:11: For the mercy of God had been given for this reason, that they should cease from the works of the law, as I have often said, because God, taking pity on our weaknesses, decreed that the human race would be saved by faith alone, along with the natural law. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 23. Migne’s latin: Nam misericordia Dei ad hoc data est, ut Lex cessaret, quod saepe jam dixi; quia Deus consulens infirmitati humanae, sola fide addita legi naturali, hominum genus salvare decrevit. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:53.

Faith alone and the natural law

wow

Commentary on the Pauline Epistles

Ambrosiaster - Therefore, those who seek eternal life are not merely those who believe correctly but those who live correctly as well.

Commentary on Titus 3:7

God by his mercy has saved us through Christ. By his grace, we born again, have received abundantly of his Holy Spirit, so that relying on good works, with him helping us in all things, we might be able thus to lay hold of the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven. Robert B. Eno "Some Patristic Views on the Relationship of Faith and Works in Justification" Justification By Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, page 115

Oops, the works of the believers empowered by the Spirit is salvific. That is Catholic 101

For justification, faith alone in love is necessary. For faith must be fortified with brotherly love for the perfection of the believer." – (Ambrosiaster, ibid. 116)

Oops, Ambrosiaster comes close to the typical Catholic formula

Chrysostom

For here he shows that the faith, so far from doing any disparagement to the "Law," even assists it, as it on the other hand paved the way for the faith. For as the Law itself before bore witness to it (for he saith, "being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets"), so here this establisheth that, now that it is unnerved. And how did it establish? he would say.What was the object of the Law and what the scope of all its enactments? Why, to make man righteous. But this it had no power to do. "For all," it says, "have sinned:" but faith when it came accomplished it. For when a man is once a believer, he is straightway justified. The intention then of the Law it did establish, and what all its enactments aim after, this hath it brought to a consummation. Consequently it has not disannulled, but perfected it. Here then three points he has demonstrated; first, that without the Law it is possible to be justified; next, that this the Law could not effect; and, that faith is not opposed to the Law.. For since the chief cause of perplexity to the Jews was this, that the faith seemed to be in opposition to it, he shows more than the Jew wishes, that so far from being contrary,it is even in close alliance and coöperation with it, which was what they especially longed to hear proved.

But since after this grace, whereby we were justified, there is need also of a life suited to it, let us show an earnestness worthy the gift. And show it we shall, if we keep with earnestness charity, the mother of good deeds. Now charity is not bare words, or mere ways of speaking (prosrhseij) to men, but a taking care (prostasia) of them, and a putting forth of itself by works, as, for instance, by relieving poverty, lending one's aid to the sick, rescuing from dangers, to stand by them that be in difficulties, to weep with them that weep, and to rejoice with them that rejoice. (Rom. xii. 15.) Homily 7, Commentary on Rom. 3:31. NPNF1: Vol. X, p. 380.

>>5203

In honoring Him, therefore, we do honor to ourselves. He who opens his eyes to gaze on the light of the sun, receives delight himself, as he admires the beauty of the star, but does no favor to that luminary, nor increases its splendor, for it continues what it was; much more is this true with respect to God. He who admires and honors God does so to his own salvation, and highest benefit; and how? Because he follows after virtue, and is honored by Him. For "them that honor Me," He says, "I will honor."…. (1 Sam. iv. 30) How then is He honored, if He enjoys no advantage from our honor?… But how may we glorify Him in the body and in the spirit? He glorifies Him in the body, who does not commit adultery or fornication, who avoids gluttony and drunkenness, who does not affect a showy exterior, who makes such provision for himself as is sufficient for health only NPNF1: Vol. XIII, p. 421.

For what he saith is this, "Your salvation is not our work alone, but your own as well;for both we in preaching to you the word endure affliction, and ye in receiving it endure the very same; we to impart to you that which we received, ye to receive what is imparted and not to let it go." Now what humility can compare with this, seeing that those who fell so far short of him he raiseth to the same dignity of endurance? for he saith, "Which worked in the enduring of the same sufferings;" for not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us. NPNF1: Vol. XII, p. 277.

For, "think not," saith he, "because ye have believed, that this is sufficient for your salvation: since if to me neither preaching nor teaching nor bringing over innumerable persons, is enough for salvation unless I exhibit my own conduct also unblameable, much less to you,." NPNF1: Vol. XII, p. 133

If we commit a great sin against the commandments..we must first induce our conscience with all our power to make haste and repent our sins as is proper, and not permit ourselves any other medicine… This is the medicine for sins, established by God and delivered to the priests of the Church, who make diligent use of it in healing the afflictions of men. You are aware of these things, as also of the fact that God, because He greatly cares for us, gave us penitence and showed us the medicine of repentance; and He established some men, those who are priests, as physicians of sins. If in this world we receive through them healing and forgiveness of sins, we shall be delivered from the judgment that is to come. It behooves us, therefore, to draw near to the priests in great confidence and to reveal to them our sins; and those priests, with all diligence, solicitude, and love, and in accord with the regulations mentioned above, will grant healing to sinners. [The priests] will not disclose the things that ought not be disclosed; rather, they will be silent about the things that have happened, as befits true and loving fathers who are bound to guard the shame of their children while striving to heal their bodies. Jurgens, ibid., vol. 2, #1113p , pp. 83-84.

If we have sinned, the Body and Blood of our Lord…will strengthen us… if we committed [those sins] voluntarily, and they came to us against our will from the weakness of our nature, and we fell into them against our desire, and on their account have been filled with remorse and have prayed to God in great repentance for our lapses….If with diligence we do good works and turn from evil deeds and truly repented of the sins that befall us, undoubtedly, we shall obtain the grace of the remission of our sins in our receiving of the holy Sacrament. Jurgens, vol. 2., #1113m, p. 83

>>5197

When you change your habits, I change mine. It's that simple. You refuse correction and act arrogant when proper charity is given. This is what you earned

>>5208

When have I been arrogant?

Are you saying that you're disciplining me? Where do you derive that entitlement?

I just want you to stop spamming the board, and for your sake I'm trying to tell you that you're not helping your case

>>5209

Ok. You didnt do it. Your fellow Baptists did

>>5214

Out of curiosity: out of all of the high-liturgical sacramental oriented churches - why Anglicanism? And what particular branch of Anglicanism in particular (I would take it you lean more towards one of the Anglo-Catholic branches, rather than the Charismatic ones?)

There are some things I can guesstimate about your beliefs based on conjecture, but that's about it. Due to your disdain for Calvinism, I assume your not going to be completely on board for the proto-Calvinism of Lutheranism, and that Presbyterians are just right out, due to their straight Calvinism. Since you've already expressed your dissociation from Roman Catholicism, I also presume you are not a big fan of Eastern Orthodoxy, as they are very similar in spite of their differences (then again, I have read and heard about communications and possible alliances between the two, so I could be wrong.) The Methodists are very similar, theologically, to Anglicans for obvious reasons. Though you might be turned off by some of their almost proto-Evangelical tendencies, and lesser emphasis on high liturgy and communion.

So, once again, my core question is this: why is Anglicanism your church of choice and, in your opinion, should be the church of choice for others? (Also, please let me know if I've inadvertently left out other high liturgical sacramental oriented churches in the aforementioned examples, as well as your agreements/disagreements with them.)

>>5216

>then again, I have read and heard about communications and possible alliances between the two, so I could be wrong.

Clarification: I meant to bring up some of the possible communications and alliances between Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism ( though I have also observed some possible steps towards reconciliation between the Greeks and Latins as well.)

>>5216

I pick Anglicanism because I consider many Catholic views as correct and not in contradiction with Scriptures.

You are right about my disdain for Calvinism, but I agree with predestination, just not in the way they put it usually. I also deny some Catholic views like the Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation and the extreme veneration of Mary that just verges on worship. I actually like many aspects of Luther's theology but I also recognise Scripture is clear on the need of works, beyond that of evidence of being Saved. It's something commanded of believers and warnings are given.

I am not familiar with Eastern Orthodox or Methodists so I cannot say much about them. Conservative Anglicanism is just the closest to my views and I find strong affinity with many of the Caroline Divines and some Elizabethan Anglicans. It is in its high church form the ideal. But I wont tell you where to go. That should only be your decision after careful thought.

You sound Orthodox

>>5214

So stop pissing on the rest of us with your spam

>>5221

Then stop forcing me to do it. If you cannot be reasonable, this is the inevitable result

Morning everyone! I hope you're ready for more quotespam. I'm picking up from where I left off last night.

Polycarp

because the strong root of your faith, spoken of in days long gone by, endures even until now, and brings forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, but whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave. In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.

Irenaeus

Human beings can be saved from the ancient wound of the serpent in no other way than by believing in him who, when he was raised up from the earth on the tree of martyrdom in the likeness of sinful flesh, drew all things to himself and gave life to the dead.

Gregory of Nazianzus

Confess Jesus Christ, and believe that He is risen from the dead, and you will be saved. For indeed righteousness is only to be believed; but a complete salvation must also be confessed and knowledge must be added to confidence.

Basil the Great

Indeed, this is the perfect and complete glorification of God, when one does not exult in his own righteousness, but recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ.

Ambrose

But when the Lord Jesus came, He forgave all men that sin which none could escape, and blotted out the handwriting against us by the shedding of His own Blood. This then is the Apostle’s meaning; sin abounded by the Law, but grace abounded by Jesus; for after that the whole world became guilty, He took away the sin of the whole world, as John bore ·witness, saying: Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Wherefore let no man glory in works, for by his works no man shall be justified, for he that is just hath a free gift, for he is justified by the Bath. It is faith then which delivers by the blood of Christ, for Blessed is the man to whom sin is remitted, and, pardon granted.

Chrysostom

Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law.

Cyril of Alexandria

Be not troubled when thou meditatest upon the greatness of thy former sins; but rather know, that still greater is the grace that justifieth the sinner and absolveth the wicked. Faith then in Christ is found to be the pledge to us of these great blessings; for it is the way that leadeth unto life, that bids us go to the mansions that are above, that raises us to the inheritance of the saints, that makes us members of the kingdom of Christ.

Marius Victorinus

For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification.

Didymus the Blind

A person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.

Ambrose contra sola fide

Concerning Repentance, Book 2. 5.35-36 But the apostles, having this baptism according to the direction of Christ, taught repentance, promised forgiveness, and remitted guilt, as David taught when he said: "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin."(Psalm 32:1-4, quoted by Paul in Rom. 4:7-8) He calls each blessed both him whose sins are remitted by the font, and him whose sin is covered by good works. For he who repents ought not only to wash away his sin by his tears, but also to cover and hide his former transgressions by amended deeds, that sin may not be imputed to him. 36. Let us, then, cover our falls by our subsequent acts; let us purify ourselves by tears, that the Lord our God may hear us when we lament, as He heard Ephraim when weeping, as it is written: "I have surely heard Ephraim weeping." (Jer. 31:18) And He expressly repeats the very words of Ephraim: "Thou hast chastised me and I was chastised, like a calf I was not trained (Jer. 31:18)."(NPNP2, vol. 10, p. 350). 

Duties of the Clergy - Book 2, 2.5 But the sacred Scriptures say that eternal life rests on a knowledge of divine things and on the fruit of good works. The Gospel bears witness to both these statements. For the Lord Jesus spoke thus of knowledge: "This is eternal life, to know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent,"(Jn. 17:3) About works He gives this answer: "Every one that hath forsaken house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My Name's sake, shall receive an hundred-fold, and shall inherit everlasting life."(Mt. 19:29) (NPNP2, vol. 10, p. 44). 

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xxiii.html

VIII.  And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths.  And this which comes to the aid of our first birth, makes us new instead of old, and like God instead of what we now are; recasting us without fire, and creating us anew without breaking us up.  For, to say it all in one word, the virtue of Baptism is to be understood as a covenant with God for a second life and a purer conversation.  And indeed all need to fear this very much, and to watch our own souls, each one of us, with all care, that we do not become liars in respect of this profession.  For if God is called upon as a Mediator to ratify human professions, how great is the danger if we be found transgressors of the covenant which we have made with God Himself; and if we be found guilty before the Truth Himself of that lie, besides our other transgressions…and that when there is no second regeneration, or recreation, or restoration to our former state, even though we seek it with all our might, and with many sighs and tears, by which it is cicatrized over (with great difficulty in my opinion, though we all believe that it may be cicatrized).  Yet if we might wipe away even the scars I should be glad, since I too have need of mercy.  But it is better not to stand in need of a second cleansing, but to stop at the first, which is, I know, common to all, and involves no labour, and is of equal price to slaves, to masters, to poor, to rich, to humble, to exalted, to gentle, to simple, to debtors, to those who are free from debt; like the breathing of the air, and the pouring forth of the light, and the changes of the seasons, and the sight of creation, that great delight which we all share alike, and the equal distribution of the faith

Yup sola fide

>>5133

So you are using scripture to say not to trust ultimately in scripture over tradition?

>>5206

>>5207

>>5258

>>5263

>>5264

>>5270

I don't know what you think the doctrine of Sola Fide is, but none of these quotes contradict it. I'm guessing you learned about from Catholic or Orthodox sources which tend to only present a caricature of the doctrine. You should probably do a bit of homework on this subject. Here's a link that describes it in detail because I'm too lazy to type out a proper explanation.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/

>>5364

>Good fruits and Baptism necessary

Ok you got two steps right but you said nothing about final judgement according to works. So what is your response to that?

You Lutherans dont accept OSAS and believe one can fall away, OK GOOD. You done well. But again, what about the role of works in final vindication? That entails that works are required.

So HOW will you explain that? Also, that is just one form of sola fide, the Baptists will call what is in that link, works salvation.