After the discussion with Sola Fide in the Early Fathers, I thought I'd post Jordan Coopers follow up.

This episode is specific to St Ambrose and his writings.

I'd like to write a big long post like Swimmer did, but this episode really turned into Jordan just reading from the writings on St. Ambrose with not a lot of discussion.

However, at a high level, St. Ambrose was St. Augustine's teacher.

He was the precursor to a lot of the development within the west.

He was born in the mid 4th century and lifted right up until the end of it.

Link to show: St. Ambrose on Justification

Man. I didn't follow the previous thread and I don't have a lot of time.

I spent years arguing this on various forums and with friends of all persuasions. And, now have five active kids so don't have much internet discussion time.

But to assert 'sola fide' - as defined by the Lutheran version of how we understand it - as something taught by Augustine or Ambrose or any other church father until Martin Luther's innovation, is patently and demonstrable false.

Only by taking a sentence here and sentence there can one try to make that argument.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/03/tradition-i-and-sola-fide-2/

^ Very thorough resource written by former Presbyterian minister who became Catholic.

You have to be extremely careful here. In the podcast itself, Jordan Cooper says - you can't say that there is a systematic fully fledged Lutheran doctrine of justification, but instead that all of the prime ideas show up, so it isn't inconsistent.

This is an insidious argument. This is certainly something we should be cautious about. This is not an appeal to the fathers at all! Instead this is saying, if we read the fathers and add to it we can derive a conclusion.

On the other hand, Jordan Cooper will always immediately turn around and tell people that quote mining is disingenuous, we can't put words into their mouths, we can't expect them to use terms in the strict senses that they were later defined in theological debates, and so on. This double minded.

For example, he cites St Clement. The exact quote from St Clement is:

Quote:

---

All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

---

Cooper says, "in other words, justification by faith alone." Oops! But there is the bait and switch! St Clement didn't teach it.

Read what he wrote. Here are the statements:

We are not justified
1. by ourselves
nor
2. by our own
a. wisdom
b. understanding
c. godliness
d. works which we have wrought in holiness of heart
but
by that faith through which God has justified all men

This is of course perfectly true. But it isn't justification by faith alone. It is saying we aren't justified by ourselves, or by our own...works. No Christian sect teaches this, I think.

And, it's also disengenous to say the seeds or the basic concept of "justification by faith alone" is present in St Clement, when literally the two paragraphs before that one he exhorts them

Quote:

---

Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words...

For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?

---

If the seeds of sola fide are there, then the full grown tree of refutation is there as well.

And it is the same with St Ambrose's writing. Yes, in explaining in his letter to Irenaeus he says - "no man is justified by its [the Law's] works" and concludes

Quote:

---

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.

---

And yes, this is what is quoted in the Augsburg confession, and if I remember correctly to Patriarch Jeremias later.

At which point you might say:


But I say


Read again. Two problems.
1. St Ambrose first talks about the universal atonement, that forgiveness of sins of the whole world was made a reality on the cross. So this entire passage is not about sola fide. It is about the efficacy and sufficiency of Christ's salvation for all mankind. In other words, it is not our work that saves us, but only the saving act of Jesus Christ who expiated the sins of all mankind.

2. I am struggling to find another / different translation of the letter above, but this one says the Bath. Without a second reference, I am going to work on the (solid, I think) assumption that this is a direct reference to baptism, which makes quite a bit of sense because St Paul makes the exact same link in Romans. Chapter 1-5 are about faith, the Law, etc...and Chapter 6 says "What do we say then?" It's the pivot, and the conclusion is baptism. St Ambrose says the person is justified by the Bath (baptism). That's not sola fide either.

So here we see St Ambrose being perfectly Orthodox in his understanding. Salvation is a free gift offered to all mankind, done solely by the power and grace of God working through the Son, belonging entirely to Him. On the other hand, the reception and the use of this is part of salvation as well, and it is incumbent upon us to both receive and work with God to salvation.

I think the problem here is not in the word justification, or justification by faith, or even perhaps justification by faith alone. The problem is in the use and application of the words to take something that was taught of as an inseparable weave of two things - faith and works - and separating them into two distinct things. The problem is viewing these words and concepts in a novel way, examining justification with regard to "what" or "when" rather than justification as a "how" or a "through".

By way of example, we see St Ambrose speaking of the names of God, referring to the type of the breastplate of the old covenant priest:

Quote:

---

...Now we have a woven work, when faith and action go together.

For those are good things, whereof the texture of the priestly robe was the token, that is to say, either the Law, or the Church, which latter has made two garments for her spouse, as it is written -- the one of action, the other of spirit, weaving together the threads of faith and works.

Thus, in one place, as we read, she makes a groundwork of gold, and afterwards weaves thereon blue, and purple, with scarlet, and white. Again, [as we read] elsewhere, she first makes little flowerets of blue and other colors, and attaches gold, and there is made a single priestly robe, to the end that adornments of diverse grace and beauty, made up of the same bright colors, may gain fresh glory by diversity of arrangement.

...Whether, then, you join to faith already present in the soul, bodily acts agreeing thereto; or acts come first, and faith be joined as their companion, presenting them to God -- here is the robe of the minister of religion, here the priestly vestment.

Faith is profitable, therefore, when her brow is bright with a fair crown of good works. (James 2:14-26) This faith -- that I may set the matter forth shortly -- is contained in the [following doctrine of the Trinity] which cannot be overthrown.

---

There's no problem with justification by faith, or faith being the prime of salvation, but the whole idea of faith apart from works. And this specific, technical distinction cannot be found in the Fathers, and it certainly isn't present in his quotations of St Ambrose On Jacob and the Happy Life.

Ambrose was the Bishop of Milan, a canonized saint and a doctor of the Church. His own words clearly demonstrate that he believed in the sacraments as taught by the Catholic Church, so I don't know how anyone can argue he thinks we are saved by faith alone.

He clearly believes in baptismal regeneration and in the sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence.

Ambrose of Milan
"We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in sacrifice here on Earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered" (Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David 38:25 [A.D. 389]).

On the Mysteries, by Ambrose:

Chapter 6
32. Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism.

Chapter 7
34. After this white robes were given to you as a sign that you were putting off the covering of sins, and putting on the chaste veil of innocence, of which the prophet said: You shall sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be cleansed, You shall wash me and I shall be made whiter than snow. For he who is baptized is seen to be purified both according to the Law and according to the Gospel: according to the Law, because Moses sprinkled the blood of the lamb with a bunch of hyssop; Exodus 12:22according to the Gospel, because Christ's garments were white as snow, when in the Gospel He showed forth the glory of His Resurrection. He, then, whose guilt is remitted is made whiter than snow. So that God said by Isaiah: Though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as snow. Isaiah 1:18

Chapter 8
47. We have proved the sacraments of the Church to be the more ancient, now recognize that they are superior. In very truth it is a marvellous thing that God rained manna on the fathers, and fed them with daily food from heaven; so that it is said, So man ate angels' food. But yet all those who ate that food died in the wilderness, but that food which you receive, that living Bread which came down from heaven, furnishes the substance of eternal life; and whosoever shall eat of this Bread shall never die, and it is the Body of Christ.
48. Now consider whether the bread of angels be more excellent or the Flesh of Christ, which is indeed the body of life. That manna came from heaven, this is above the heavens; that was of heaven, this is of the Lord of the heavens; that was liable to corruption, if kept a second day, this is far from all corruption, for whosoever shall taste it holily shall not be able to feel corruption. For them water flowed from the rock, for you Blood flowed from Christ; water satisfied them for a time, the Blood satiates you for eternity. The Jew drinks and thirsts again, you after drinking will be beyond the power of thirsting; that was in a shadow, this is in truth.
49. If that which you so wonder at is but shadow, how great must that be whose very shadow you wonder at. See now what happened in the case of the fathers was shadow: They drank, it is said, of that Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were done in a figure concerning us. 1 Corinthians 10:4 You recognize now which are the more excellent, for light is better than shadow, truth than a figure, the Body of its Giver than the manna from heaven.

Chapter 9
The whole thing is Ambrose explaining how the Eucharist is the Real Presence and how Christ is actually present at baptism and effecting a real, sacramental regeneration.

Ok, now, to be fair to Cooper and AgLiving, I'm not sure that really addresses the point.

The question is really, is sola fide a novel teaching? To address that, you need a good working definition of sola fide. I'm not sure that sola fide necessarily argues against baptism as a means of being justified by faith, for example. Cooper's point re: St Ambrose is if you listen to him, he says some things that sound like sola fide. Perhaps we could call it like primitive sola fide. But the issue is... is primitive sola fide, sola fide?

I say no, because we can't say he taught it unless he actually did. It either has to be affirmed positively or it is novel. If we recruit him by primitive sola fide into sola fide camp, we start asking or expecting him to endorse something he may well have actively refuted. So it either needs to be actual sola fide or not.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't hear St Ambrose even in a primitive sola fide. I hear him speaking about justification by faith, but not by faith alone, specifically apart from works. That's the whole wrinkle. Neither Rome or the East denied or denies justification by faith.

Quote:

---

You have to be extremely careful here. In the podcast itself, Jordan Cooper says - you can't say that there is a systematic fully fledged Lutheran doctrine of justification, but instead that all of the prime ideas show up, so it isn't inconsistent.

This is an insidious argument. This is certainly something we should be cautious about. This is not an appeal to the fathers at all! Instead this is saying, if we read the fathers and add to it we can derive a conclusion.

---

Two things. This is consistent with what he said last week. It's not reasonable to expect the Father's to have a fully developed doctrine that Rome, Orthodox or Lutheran's follow today. To do so is to make the claim they are omniscient instead of infallible. In this case, clarity around justification wasn't truly necessary until the Reformation, hence the Father's language (and others) won't be clear on the topic since it wasn't a primary issue.

Two, certainly it should be done with extreme caution. But doctrinal development has been part of the west for as long as it has existed.

So it's not a particularly scary or exciting point to be honest.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, Jordan Cooper will always immediately turn around and tell people that quote mining is disingenuous, we can't put words into their mouths, we can't expect them to use terms in the strict senses that they were later defined in theological debates, and so on. This double minded.

For example, he cites St Clement. The exact quote from St Clement is:

---

Is this from the first podcast? I don't recall him reference St. Clement in the second podcast?

Quote:

---

And, it's also disengenous to say the seeds or the basic concept of "justification by faith alone" is present in St Clement, when literally the two paragraphs before that one he exhorts them

---

This is pretty nitpicky.

From the quote you posted, it's clear nothing in ourselves seems to impact our salvation. The only seem that seems sufficient is the faith in God that justified man from the beginning.

Quote:

---

I think the problem here is not in the word justification, or justification by faith, or even perhaps justification by faith alone. The problem is in the use and application of the words to take something that was taught of as an inseparable weave of two things - faith and works - and separating them into two distinct things. The problem is viewing these words and concepts in a novel way, examining justification with regard to "what" or "when" rather than justification as a "how" or a "through".

---

I don't think that's the problem or even a problem really.

Works just simply don't come into the picture when it comes to justification. Just as Clement points out. I think you now see why the Reformation became so vitally important. Rome was in heresy on this point.

However, works are vitally important to the Christians. Ephesians makes it clear we were created by God to works He prepared for us.

Quote:

---

Works just simply don't come into the picture when it comes to justification. Just as Clement points out. I think you now see why the Reformation became so vitally important. Rome was in heresy on this point.

---

Except for that pesky St James and his "straw" on faith being dead without it.

K2,

Quote:

---

St Ambrose says the person is justified by the Bath (baptism). That's not sola fide either.

---

I think that's the point I was trying to make with the quotes from Ambrose on the sacraments.

Baptism isn't a work.

Quote:

---

Two things. This is consistent with what he said last week. It's not reasonable to expect the Father's to have a fully developed doctrine that Rome, Orthodox or Lutheran's follow today.

---

I don't think that's valid. Neither Rome or the East changed doctrine or even really how they spoke about justification in response to Luther. Luther (and his followers) challenged them and both rejected this challenge.

Quote:

---

In this case, clarity around justification wasn't truly necessary until the Reformation, hence the Father's language (and others) won't be clear on the topic since it wasn't a primary issue.

---

This is over the top. There was a wealth of material on technical discussions about salvation to draw upon. The Pelagian controversy alone gave plenty of material. The reason the clarity wasn't there is because they didn't think about it that way, not because the Church's soteriology was somehow lacking.

Quote:

---

Two, certainly it should be done with extreme caution. But doctrinal development has been part of the west for as long as it has existed.

---

this isn't doctrinal development, and to put it in those terms begs the question.

Quote:

---

Is this from the first podcast? I don't recall him reference St. Clement in the second podcast?

---

yeah in the first ten minutes he said first Clement has the seeds of sola fide. The letter isn't long, so it's not that hard to look at it.

Quote:

---

From the quote you posted, it's clear nothing in ourselves seems to impact our salvation. The only seem that seems sufficient is the faith in God that justified man from the beginning.

---

Don't mix and match salvation with justification. That's the kind of careless statement that muddies things up. The quote says what it says, no more and no less.

Quote:

---

Works just simply don't come into the picture when it comes to justification. Just as Clement points out. I think you now see why the Reformation became so vitally important. Rome was in heresy on this point.

---

Heresy line doesn't compute. If this is true the whole church was "in heresy" on this issue...which makes no sense. Can't be heresy without schism, and there was no schism on this topic.

Anyway. The first sentence there isn't kind of the point in a nutshell. You're answering the question "is it faith or works?" by saying "Faith clearly". But the whole premise is can we even make a cut between them? And that's the issue, none of the fathers ever write as if you can. Nor does St Paul, who says justification will happen at the final judgment. Many fathers write in this way, with justification and sanctification as linked in the order of salvation, in a fluid sense temporally (past present and future). So because sometimes they talk about justification by faith, in the past tense, doesn't mean they believe in justification by faith alone in a one time sense.

The other thing to remember about these ancient sermons and letters is that there wasn't a controversy, at the time, about whether faith OR works justify.

Modern man has a tendency to impute our debates upon them but it doesn't work. This issue and question was not on their radar. It wouldn't be an issue for another 1,000 years.

OP - I didn't intend to be dismissive but I've honestly read dozens of books on the subject, hundreds of articles by people a lot smarter than me from both sides of the debate and listened to scores of podcasts etc.

The fathers, both east and west, never pitted faith vs works. Just as St James tells us, faith and works are like a soul to a body. Therefore to speak of one "only" at the exclusion of the other is misguided.

Is it any wonder that the two apostolic historical faiths that rely on the fathers more than any church agree on justification?

They are not pitted against each other. They are used chonologically.

The Holy Spirit gives the gift of faith. Faith creates good works. Good works strengthen faith which comes from the Holy Spirit allowing us to do good works which strengthens faith.

It's like a loop dee loo. It has a start point.. then it becomes a circle.

That chronological arrangement is the theological novum.

I'm going to try to listen to this after work this evening and give notes. Meant to last night but just was not feeling well at all.

As it turns out, yes, that is the argument that has been the last two threads on this subject. Pastor Coopr, myself, and Agliving, say that it isnt a innovation and you keep saying it is a new thing.

Since Seamaster wasn't around for thread one and implied that good works are cast to the side entirely in Cooper's doctrine, I corrected that.

Sorry, I was unclear.

Your answer to seamaster reinforces his point. By arranging them chronologically you have separated them. The use of "pitted" is in two different senses. One is "against" in an adversarial sense - and no, I don't think anyone teaches that they are "against" one another. The other is "against" as in contrast two, separate from, cut apart.

We can't arrange two things in a chronological fashion without separating them, first faith, then works. Or first faith, then faith and works. If they are truly inseparable, it's always faith and works intertwined...or as St Paul says, faith working in love. The very crux of the argument is can you ever have faith without works? Because if the answer is "no" asking which comes first is notional only, an intellectual exercise like the chicken or the egg, or Zeno's paradoxes.

It seems to me that Luther started his investigation with the position - piously inspired by his reading of Romans no doubt - saying yes, you can must be able to have faith without works. To solve the challenge this presents, Luther says dead faith saves. But this is a gross oversimplification of the whole picture.

The whole thing is significantly nuanced, and frankly probably beyond anyone on this thread (self included!) to truly ferret out the differences. Of significant note is a definition of terms (justification, sanctification, salvation, faith, works) which often get used in a nontechnical way that muddy the waters. Truthfully even St Paul sometimes switches the sense in which he uses a word from one book to another, one passage to another. The fathers the same, as Cooper points out, Luther the same. And we're reading passages and writings from across people's entire lives, over which their language, approach, and possibly even their convictions change...sometimes radically.

For example, I think the idea of simul justus et peccator combined with sola fide is extremely challenging to the "basic" premise of sola fide by itself. To be justified means to not be a sinner; to be a sinner means you are not justified. When you look at this from a certain perspective, you could create a (highly irenic!) chain of logic that says, for example, that only faith justifies, and in this justification we are both justified and sinner, therefore justification is ongoing, and since sanctification is also ongoing, justification and sanctification overlap, therefore one never exists without the other, therefore faith never exists without works. Ok... well, you know, that's more or less the Orthodox position.

When you add in some of the theology that simul justus et peccator represents, of course, you run into more difficulties (imputed righteousness vs ontological righteousness) which are probably more of the heart of the disagreement.

But still. The point remains. It is not enough to find statements or writings of the fathers that are what I'd call primitive sola fide, or primitive imputed righteousness. Just like its not enough to find primitive or proto-Arianism in ante-Nicaean fathers to say they are post facto heretical and support Arianism.

And this is why, ultimately, it all boils down to the question of authority. At some point, someone has to make a decision and this decision has to be accepted or rejected by the Church. We're really left with very few options here. Either Rome and Constantinople (representing the whole of Christendom) were wrong in their soteriology or Luther was. If Rome and Constantinople were (and are) wrong, then you have the difficult case of the entirety of Christendom, east and west, united in error.

This begs the question "if they're united in error on this, then what else are they wrong about...?" which opens literally everything up. Of course, everything means everything, and now we're back to re-examining the ecumenical councils, the canon, every tenet of the faith up to and including the dogmatic theology of the Trinity. And when you do this, you just create schism after schism. This isn't conjecture, this has already actually happened. We can see this happening even today.

Ok, but for sanity's sake let's limit it to sola fide. It has become an either or, either one is right or the other is. But, perhaps we could come to an agreement that says, both are wrong / both are right, and this simply isn't an issue worth having a schism over. Honestly, by itself I would probably land in that camp. Taken by itself I think the whole chronology is novel, but ultimately an intellectual exercise of no import to the pastoral care, or daily life of a Christian. Presumably these are the people we're worried about teaching. Unfortunately, though, I think it cannot be taken by itself, because it brings a whole bunch of other baggage to it, one significant piece being the result of the conflict, the ensuing schisms. Scripturally speaking, we have to recognize schisms as opportunities for historical inquiry into God's approval. I think the historical record on this point speaks for itself.

If you want to discuss Simul Justus et Peccator, that's a whole nother thread and honestly not actually that huge of an influence on confessional Lutheran beliefs. Plus, I'm not sure you have a true understanding of how the term is used + ramifications of said term. Of course, my original goal in the first thread was not to create a Lutheran vs orthodox debate, but here we seem to be anyway.

Faith and works are distinct like an apple to it's peel... a soul to its body? Sure. God made the body, then He breathed a soul into it and now they are inseparable. They have different purposes, different uses. Like male and female, different but they belong together and one got here first. None of us denies the importance of living a Christian life or that you can't remain in the faith without doing the things that God calls us to do. Faith and good works are so intertwined that Lutherans say that we can not be credited with any of our good works because they are a result of the faith the Holy Spirit has given us. But nothing good we do merits our salvation, else we are lost. That's literally why the Gospel is so important.

If this subject is all novel and adiophora, then the Lutherans are on the safer side of this mess.

Now I'm off to go sell wedding dresses to pretty people and hopefully try on the whole yumi line because it's existence alone might be proof that God loves me.

No, I wasn't trying to open up simul justus et peccator, and I know I was using the concept liberally. I was just showing how the layers of the various theological frameworks both could be used ecumenically / irenically to try to reconcile the tangles, and how they also prevent individual pieces from being split out to be discussed in isolation. You really can't take sola fide by itself and reconcile it, because it's not a standalone theology. And it was never meant to be.

Its not a working discussion to present the conclusion of your argument as the argument itself. As for a body+soul duality, that's a great example as to why this kind of theology spells trouble. At what point does the soul become joined to the fetus in the womb? Because surely before that it's not a life, right? We would all reject this as both a notional concept (unknowable) and also as a dangerous one.

If everything is the result of faith, and faith is the result of God, in what way can we be said to be fellow-workers? How can we be told to believe, to do anything, to be anything? It's like Calvinism, leaving the human as a puppet. The only difference being, Calvinism puts even the assent to faith on the side of God. Again, this is either an intellectual exercise or a troubling theology. We are called to do things, and to be things. And so we must work to effect our salvation.

"Nothing good we do merits our salvation?" Here is the mixing and matching of salvation and justification again. Another problem with this theology all together, because it results in the muddling of what salvation is, identifying it solely with justification, then narrowing down justification to a single point in time. Of course, that is not what the scriptures say, because, again, St Paul says the righteous will be justified on the judgment day (Romans 2:13,16)

But if we change it to nothing good we do merits our [justification]? Of course not, because justification was freely offered to us before we ever did anything, and it is offered to all men regardless of their actions or even willingness. It's like saying I did something to merit my own birth, it's impossible. But again, no one is arguing this, neither Rome nor the East said that human actions merit the grace of God or merit the saving actions of Christ on the Cross. So again, this has to be a narrow, tight focus.

Quote:

---

As for a body+soul duality, that's a great example as to why this kind of theology spells trouble. At what point does the soul become joined to the fetus in the womb? Because surely before that it's not a life, right? We would all reject this as both a notional concept (unknowable) and also as a dangerous

---

Oh c'mon. You know on this and the male/female comparison I was talking origin story while you are clearly referencing more recent issues. (Obviously I have also been talking comic books today) besides, I didn't start that one, Seamaster did.

"besides, I didn't start that one, Seamaster did..."

It was actually St James.

k2aggie07 said:

---

If everything is the result of faith, and faith is the result of God, in what way can we be said to be fellow-workers? How can we be told to believe, to do anything, to be anything? It's like Calvinism, leaving the human as a puppet. The only difference being, Calvinism puts even the assent to faith on the side of God. Again, this is either an intellectual exercise or a troubling theology. We are called to do things, and to be things. And so we must work to effect our salvation.

---

As much as I wanted to avoid the sectarian squabbling, here goes. I'm not a Calvinist (though one friend tells me I am and don't know it yet...which I guess is a very Calvinist thing to say), but they are apparently underrepresented here.

They would argue that, as one of the Elect, you receive the grace of God that you need to have faith. Without that grace you are too broken by sin to even desire much less pursue communion with the Father.

Then, as a result of that faith, the Spirit changes you, and you respond to those changes by doing good. You choose to do good works, and you choose not to sin, but absent God's grace and the influence of the Holy Spirit, those choices would not have been open to you.

I think that's pretty close to what the Lutherans are saying here, and I think it's also pretty far from being a puppet.

Right, but the whole sticky issue in Calvinism is prior to the reception of grace a person is screwed entirely and not everyone gets that grace (because of limited atonement). So regardless of what happens after the magic point zero, before that everyone is just floating around as a puppet without free will. I don't think that works.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Right, but the whole sticky issue in Calvinism is prior to the reception of grace a person is screwed entirely and not everyone gets that grace (because of limited atonement). So regardless of what happens after the magic point zero, before that everyone is just floating around as a puppet without free will. I don't think that works.

---

When you say, "I don't think that works" and that it is a "sticky issue," you aren't supporting your assertion. Why should it be otherwise?

It's evident that not everyone gets that grace. The question is, do they not receive it because they choose not to, or do they not receive it because they are not chosen for it? The effects look the same regardless of the cause.

It doesn't work because it's not scriptural.

There's a difference between not everyone accepts and not everyone is eligible. To the outward observer, they may look the same, but they are not, as you see.

Here's some previous discussions:
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2928542

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3006216

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2932570

Quote:

---

I don't think that's valid. Neither Rome or the East changed doctrine or even really how they spoke about justification in response to Luther. Luther (and his followers) challenged them and both rejected this challenge.

---

I don't think this is correct (I wasn't going to use valid )

The east is easy. As Jordan goes to lengths in multiple podcasts, the east doesn't think in terms of Justification. So in the context of this discussion they really aren't even at the table to have the discussion.

As to Rome, if you're answer is that they never changed anything and salvation has always been works based, that's likely worse than what I posed. I don't think this was the case though until the Pope decided he needed money.

Rome clearly taught a works based salvation, one that could literally be purchased. If that was always the norm, that's even more concerning.

Quote:

---

This is over the top. There was a wealth of material on technical discussions about salvation to draw upon. The Pelagian controversy alone gave plenty of material. The reason the clarity wasn't there is because they didn't think about it that way, not because the Church's soteriology was somehow lacking.

---

Yes...And as soon as the Pelagian controversy was resolved, Rome went searching for holes to exploit. I don't think we would be wrong to call Rome semi-pelagians.

Quote:

---

this isn't doctrinal development, and to put it in those terms begs the question.

---

I'm not sure how you could say it's not. As Jordan mentioned, Ambrose is called out in the Book of Concord (maybe specifically Augsburg). They clearly looked at the concepts of Ambrose (among others) to see how to frame Justification.

Quote:

---

Don't mix and match salvation with justification. That's the kind of careless statement that muddies things up. The quote says what it says, no more and no less.

---

Luther said that Justification is pillar on which the Church stands or falls. The east downplays it, but not in the west.

Quote:

---

Heresy line doesn't compute. If this is true the whole church was "in heresy" on this issue...which makes no sense. Can't be heresy without schism, and there was no schism on this topic.

---

This was the beauty of what Rome did.

If you refuse to debate the topic, you can claim whatever you want is what was always believed.

But clearly there was schism between Lutherans and Rome. We could argue of who broke from who (just as the Catholics and Orthodox do), but clearly there was a split that should have been addressed and debated.

I'm on my way to a business meeting masquerading as a baseball game, so I'll have to check out the old discussions later. For now, though, it looks like you are making the same mistake you accused others of making on the last thread: what you say is not biblical is actually a difference in interpretation of the same text.

And for the record, I do agree with you on this point at least. I just respect a lot of people who see it differently.

Sorry to all for the detour, and thanks to K2 for the polite discourse.

Well, again this comes to authority. Not everyone should interpret scripture, and certainly not apart and against the Church.

Besides, we can clearly see that scripture actively disavows limited atonement. God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 1 Tim 2:4). He doesn't want anyone to perish (Ezekiel 18:23,32). He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicket (Ezekiel 33:11). Christ came into the world to save sinners (John 3:17), and the whole world (1 John 4:14). He took away the sins of the world. (John 1:29). He is the savior of all men,especially those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10). He appeared to bring salvation to all men (Titus 2:11). And so on.

Quote:

---

As to Rome, if you're answer is that they never changed anything and salvation has always been works based, that's likely worse than what I posed. I don't think this was the case though until the Pope decided he needed money.

Rome clearly taught a works based salvation, one that could literally be purchased. If that was always the norm, that's even more concerning.

---

Can we please stop using salvation and justification interchangeably??

Here is a decent summary of the issue of indulgences:
Abuses aside, and risking over-simplification, indulgences were taught to be the specific application by the Church of the merits of Christ to various individuals so as to release them from having to perform certain acts of satisfaction for confessed sins whose guilt had already been removed by absolution. By granting indulgence to a person, the Church was not so much releasing that person from his temporal obligations as providing him with the means to meet them.

Quote:

---

Yes...And as soon as the Pelagian controversy was resolved, Rome went searching for holes to exploit. I don't think we would be wrong to call Rome semi-pelagians.

---

Semi-pelagian is an invented term of the Reformation. Reformers even used it to slur St John Cassian in hindsight. its ridiculous. Pelagius taught that in theory salvation apart from grace was possible by man's own efforts. There's no semi- about it. You either think that is possible or you don't. Rome has never taught that, St John Cassian never taught it, the East never taught it. It's like being a little bit pregnant.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure how you could say it's not. As Jordan mentioned, Ambrose is called out in the Book of Concord (maybe specifically Augsburg). They clearly looked at the concepts of Ambrose (among others) to see how to frame Justification.

---

Man, I specifically addressed the quote in Augsburg confession and why it is not applicable. It simply doesn't teach sola fide. I even put funny memes.

Quote:

---

Luther said that Justification is pillar on which the Church stands or falls. The east downplays it, but not in the west.

---

The east does not downplay it, they just don't agree that justification and sanctification can be decisively split temporally. This is not a real argument. You can't say "well you just don't care" when people are actively disagreeing with you.

Quote:

---

If you refuse to debate the topic, you can claim whatever you want is what was always believed.

---

This is just not true. There are tons, tons of detailed and nuanced arguments about justification. They didn't refuse to debate, they just didn't agree.

I would appreciate if you could muster some more nuance for these discussions, because it warrants it.

Quote:

---

But clearly there was schism between Lutherans and Rome. We could argue of who broke from who (just as the Catholics and Orthodox do), but clearly there was a split that should have been addressed and debated.

---

You said they were in heresy over the point. As in, prior to Luther, they were heretical. This does't make sense. The heresy can't exist until it is a willful schism over a point.

The problem with this is it is just a mess all around. Like when Luther wrote to Pope Leo "It is not the sacrament, but faith in the sacrament, that justifies." Yikes.

Quote:

---

Can we please stop using salvation and justification interchangeably??

---

No?

To do that is to miss the point of justification.

You're still trying to come at this from the east so you will inherently disagree no matter what.

Quote:

---

Abuses aside, and risking over-simplification, indulgences were taught to be the specific application by the Church of the merits of Christ to various individuals so as to release them from having to perform certain acts of satisfaction for confessed sins whose guilt had already been removed by absolution. By granting indulgence to a person, the Church was not so much releasing that person from his temporal obligations as providing him with the means to meet them.

---

Exactly! And this misses the point entirely of God's Grace.

The mere belief that anything we do is sufficient to meet an "obligation" is just a scary pathway to go down.

Quote:

---

Semi-pelagian is an invented term of the Reformation. Reformers even used it to slur St John Cassian in hindsight. its ridiculous. Pelagius taught that in theory salvation apart from grace was possible by man's own efforts. There's no semi- about it. You either think that is possible or you don't. Rome has never taught that, St John Cassian never taught it, the East never taught it. It's like being a little bit pregnant.

---

I'd refer you to what you posted above to see an exact example.

Quote:

---

The east does not downplay it, they just don't agree that justification and sanctification can be decisively split temporally. This is not a real argument. You can't say "well you just don't care" when people are actively disagreeing with you. [/quote[

I mean, this is you just arguing to argue.

The east does not put the emphasis on Justification like the west does.

You'd be better off just saying that Justification resides within Sanctification at best. There's little to no legal language (as Jordan specifically pointed out) within the east.

I'm not sure why you try to argue against it? It's not a good or bad thing, just a reality of how the east emphasizes itself.

Quote:

---

This is just not true. There are tons, tons of detailed and nuanced arguments about justification. They didn't refuse to debate, they just didn't agree.

I would appreciate if you could muster some more nuance for these discussions, because it warrants it.

---

You misunderstood me.

I was not accusing your of anything.

I was saying that Rome refused to take up the issue. Instead, they simply said "we are right and you are wrong. Agree with us or be in anathema.

The Council of Trent was the best they could muster and that took place after Luther's and Melanchthon's death's (it may have started before their death, but nothing was finalized until after, not sure of the dates)

Quote:

---

You said they were in heresy over the point. As in, prior to Luther, they were heretical. This does't make sense. The heresy can't exist until it is a willful schism over a point.

---

semantics.

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Can we please stop using salvation and justification interchangeably??

---

No?

To do that is to miss the point of justification.

---

I kinda had this same thought.

Justification is the binary 1/0 saved-not saved in our soteriology. So it's distinction without a difference. I can be the lowliest person in heaven just barely inside the pearly gates, but if I'm justified (spoiler alert: I am!!) then I have achieved salvation.

Quote:

---

To do that is to miss the point of justification.

You're still trying to come at this from the east so you will inherently disagree no matter what.

---

Justification and salvation are not the same thing. They are not spoken of interchangeably in the scriptures. Sanctification and justification are distinct things, and both are part of salvation.

I'm not trying to come at it from anywhere in particular. I'm not cradle Orthodox. I was never taught as a baptist that salvation has an identity relationship with justification. That's just wrong. I don't think Lutheranism teaches this. If it does, then it's not just the theological novelty to make justification and sanctification distinct temporal things, it's the novelty of omitting sanctification from salvation altogether.

Quote:

---

Exactly! And this misses the point entirely of God's Grace. The mere belief that anything we do is sufficient to meet an "obligation" is just a scary pathway to go down.
...
I'd refer you to what you posted above to see an exact example.

---

Please read it again. You missed the point. The guilt of the person was already removed through absolution, the sin was remitted through the sacrament. In other words, the indulgence was not between God and man, it was between man and the church. A person who is penitent may come to receive absolution from their priest, and the priest may say something like - you've been struggling with this for a long time, so to help you fight it, you should do a penance. This could be apologizing to someone, or paying back the money they owe (like Zacchaeus). The sin is still remitted through absolution. The penance is pastoral, it's to help the person overcome their passions. This is not a question of grace per se, it is a question of how the Latin church was using financial means as an option for penance.

Please note I am not defending the practice, as it is dubious theologically and certainly ripe for abuse. I'm just saying, the Roman Catholic defense of the practice did not set the penitent up to buy grace, but to buy penance. Not satisfaction with God for the sin, but satisfaction with their confessor. They are different things.

So no, this is not an example of Pelagianism. Pelagius taught that a person who lived a sinless life did not need a savior at all. Pelagius teaching was not that our actions could be used as recompense for sins committed. And, again, Rome didn't teach that either.

Quote:

---

I was saying that Rome refused to take up the issue. Instead, they simply said "we are right and you are wrong. Agree with us or be in anathema.

---

Man, this isn't true. Luther's works and writings were discussed all over Europe, before and after his condemantion. There were public debates, public writings, counter-publications.

There was the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518. Then Luther was summoned to Rome along with a copy of Sylvester Prierias' (who was a Dominican Priest) "A Dialogue Against the Presumptuous Conclusions of Martin Luther". He refused to go, but wrote and published a written response. There was the interrogation and dialogue between Cardinal Cajetan (an academic, doctor, and theologian) and Luther.

In 1519 there was a public debate at Leipzig between Johann Eck (a professor of theology) about free will and grace. Statements in this debate led to Pope Leo publishing the Exsurge Domine in 1520. Luther and Eck agreed to submit their positions to presented in the Leipzig dispute to the University of Erfurt and the University of Paris faculty to be reviewed. Erfurt bowed out. But the Universtity of Paris faculty debated Luther's positions quite seriously. And they unanimously wrote in their 1521 Determinatio condemning 104 propositions of his as heretical. This was also published.

Luther aside, the Parlement of Paris consulted the University faculty routinely for cases of heresy, about once a year. This wasn't just not debated.

Yes, there was politics involved (on both sides). Yes, many of the "official" interactions were hopeless because of people talking past one another. Yes, Exsurge Domine was inept hot garbage. But that doesn't mean Rome - conscientious people like Cajetan, Eck, and even Pope Adrian - didn't seriously consider, reason, and disagree with the theology...often publicly.

Quote:

---

semantics.

---

Words matter. Use them properly. Dominican Scholar Meister Eckhard said in 1326 "The first mistake [my judges] make is that they think that everything they do not understand is an error and every error is a heresy, when only the obstinate adherence to error makes error a heresy and a heretic, as the laws and the doctors hold." Error is not heresy.

Quote:

---

Justification is the binary 1/0 saved-not saved in our soteriology. So it's distinction without a difference. I can be the lowliest person in heaven just barely inside the pearly gates, but if I'm justified (spoiler alert: I am!!) then I have achieved salvation.

---

Then this is the question that has to be proven in the scripture and in the fathers. And it won't be, because the scriptures and the fathers do not talk about justification apart from sacntification, just like they don't talk about faith apart from works.