Response to Roman Catholics

[Toasty]

How would you respond to a Roman Catholic that says that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is a new doctrine that was invented during the Reformation?

Is it best to say something like this? "The oldness or newness of a belief has no bearing on whether it is true. What matters is whether the Bible teaches it and the Bible clearly teaches it."

 

[Edm]

I would not go that way. It leaves open the door that the path to salvation was not known for 1500 years, which is wrong. I would go to scripture and show where it is stated. Then they will go to James, and you will put it in context and they will disagree.

 

[RamistThomist]

I would point out one thing

1) Medieval belief on soteriology wasn't uniform, as Oberman makes clear (Harvest of Medieval Theology. Being the case, why is it a problem if the Reformers take key elements from Patristic and Medieval theology and draw the inferences together?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

How would you respond to a Roman Catholic that says that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is a new doctrine that was invented during the Reformation?

Is it best to say something like this? "The oldness or newness of a belief has no bearing on whether it is true. What matters is whether the Bible teaches it and the Bible clearly teaches it."

Do not buy into the Romanist's mythologies that justification by faith alone was an invention of the Reformation.

See the following for very informative information about the views of the early church fathers:
http://www.christianbook.com/scripture-ground-pillar-faith-vols-1/william-webster/pd/4678
(Webster and King)

Commenting on the words “justified freely by His grace” in Romans 3:24, Fitzmyer (a Catholic commentary author on Romans) notes: “It should be superfluous to stress . . . that in using dorean and te autou chariti, Paul is not referring to the efficient cause of justification by the former and the formal cause by the latter (as if charis were ‘sanctifying grace’). That is anachronistic exegesis, a distinction born of later medieval and Tridentine [Council of Trent] theology.”

In Fitzmyer’s exposition of Romans 3:27–31. It was in his translation of Romans 3:28 in 1522 that Luther’s appeal to sola fide emerged as seminal for the Reformation understanding of the gospel. Fitzmyer recognizes that this language long predates Luther and can be found in the writings of the early fathers. He frankly states that “in this context” Paul means “by faith alone”.

The RCC today is four or five generations removed from its beginnings. The ancient form held to Nicene orthodoxy and was in fellowship with other churches. The medieval version insisted on Roman supremacy, embraced transubstantiation, and thusly separated itself from other Christian churches. At that time justification and the place of tradition were still open to discussion. At Trent, the Tridentine form (1545–1563) of the church moved it beyond its medieval form by condemning views that had remained open to discussion and adding many more. Next came Vatican I (1868–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). These post-Tridentine versions of Rome theoretically are to be upholding the decisions of Trent, but when one examines the practices of Rome, they have moved outside the bounds and against Trent. For example, rather than supplementing Scripture with tradition, post-Tridentine Rome uses tradition to usurp Scripture.

One must remember that some matters of the faith were never in dispute in the early church until Rome began to augment what was commonly understood, thus provoking the church to respond against her errors.

http://heidelblog.net/2014/10/justif...rian-doctrine/

For that matter, Scripture is clear on the matter so to argue we had no doctrine until it was more clearly articulated is not an argument at all.

Let's look at how Paul frames the issue:
Romans 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Romans 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Romans 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

For Paul, justification by works is antithetical to justification by faith. Justification by faith excludes justification by works, and vice versa. Works can't supplement faith as a principle of justification. If you add works to faith in justification, they cancel each other out.

Differences over justification are motivated by different understandings of grace. In Roman Catholic theology grace is understood as a medicinal substance infused into a person at baptism, elevating nature to supernatural appetites. In Reformation theology grace is understood as God’s favor to those who are dead in sins and ungodly, on account of Christ’s merit alone. Through faith, God gives believers nothing less than Christ and all of his benefits. Among these gifts is rebirth and sanctification, but this renewal is the consequence of justification rather than part of its definition.

Rome's notions of initial and progressive justification place the Catholic on the sacramental treadmill: http://tinyurl.com/75glvdj

See also:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/...formation.html

http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4430976

Origen (185-254 AD): “For God is just, and therefore he could not justify the unjust. Therefore he required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by having faith in Him those who could not be justified by their own works might be justified.” Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.112.

Origen (again): “A man is justified by faith. The works of the law can make no contribution to this. Where there is no faith which might justify the believer, even if there are works of the law these are not based on the foundation of faith. Even if they are good in themselves they cannot justify the one who does them, because faith is lacking, and faith is the mark of those who are justified by God.” Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.136.

Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398) “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.” Source: Didymus the Blind. Commentary on James, 2:26b.

For more see:
http://thecripplegate.com/reprise-th...hurch-fathers/

Augustine is not so black and white and his views evolved. Calvin wrote of him:

"Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings. (Src: A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God)

I do think Augustine tends to confound regeneration, justification and sanctification: he views them all as one on-going process, a process which is only completed on the day of one's earthly death.

Augustine used a Latin translation (only began to study Greek later in life), and gathered his meaning of justification from the Latin verb "justificare" (to make righteous), rather than the Greek verb δικαιόω which means to declare righteous. Thus, for Augustine, if justification means "to make righteous" then righteousness is infused.

A good resource that distills many of Augustine's views:
http://www.puritanpublications.com/store/products/augustines-calvinism-the-doctrines-of-grace-in-augustines-writings-by-c-matthew-mcmahon/

 

[NickCamp]

How would you respond to a Roman Catholic that says that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is a new doctrine that was invented during the Reformation?

Is it best to say something like this? "The oldness or newness of a belief has no bearing on whether it is true. What matters is whether the Bible teaches it and the Bible clearly teaches it."

I agree with Edm. Just show where scripture says it. BUT, I have found that it is the different definitions of words that makes communication hard with Roman Catholics. Their theological definition of justification is different in that it includes sanctification. So when you talk about justification with them they also believe that sanctification is included and therefore they think that you teach that you don't have any works. Basically, they believe that protestants have "cheap grace". They consider justification to be a "process" instead of one act. This means that they believe that justification is to be preserved. Show showing them the greek may be helpful? I hope that helps. I found this surprising when having formal debates with a couple of Roman Catholics on the topic. Here is a Catholic page that kind of shows what I am saying and how it becomes confusing: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

 

[Justified]

Patrick's post is very good. If you look to the Medievals and the Fathers for the doctrine of justification by faith alone as understood and articulated by the Reformers, you by and large seek in vain. The same goes the other way. The Fathers were not proto-Protestants, nor were they proto-Romanists. Protestants inquiring into Rome often making the following error: they look into the history of the early church and fail to find Protestantism, and they infer from this that that the Fathers must have been Roman Catholics, EO's, etc. This is an erroneous inference.

Ironically, I think a strong doctrine of the development of doctrine safeguards one from desiring to find their theology in systematic fashion in the Fathers. I say, ironic, because the "champion" of the development of doctrine was Cardinal Henry Newman, a convert to RC. That being said, Phillip Schaff also had a doctrine of the development of doctrine (see The Principle of Protestantism.

Remember this: the doctrine of justification by faith alone is not the justification by believing in justification by faith alone. Great Fathers and Doctors of the Church such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, et al. all denied this doctrine, and yet they were all greatly used of the Lord, such is his grace.

That said, there are certainly antecedents to the doctrine of JBFA, though most of them are only seminal.

 

[Toasty]

How would you respond to a Roman Catholic that says that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is a new doctrine that was invented during the Reformation?

Is it best to say something like this? "The oldness or newness of a belief has no bearing on whether it is true. What matters is whether the Bible teaches it and the Bible clearly teaches it."

I agree with Edm. Just show where scripture says it. BUT, I have found that it is the different definitions of words that makes communication hard with Roman Catholics. Their theological definition of justification is different in that it includes sanctification. So when you talk about justification with them they also believe that sanctification is included and therefore they think that you teach that you don't have any works. Basically, they believe that protestants have "cheap grace". They consider justification to be a "process" instead of one act. This means that they believe that justification is to be preserved. Show showing them the greek may be helpful? I hope that helps. I found this surprising when having formal debates with a couple of Roman Catholics on the topic. Here is a Catholic page that kind of shows what I am saying and how it becomes confusing: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

Thank you. I'll show where Scripture says it.

 

[Toasty]

How would you respond to a Roman Catholic that says that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is a new doctrine that was invented during the Reformation?

Is it best to say something like this? "The oldness or newness of a belief has no bearing on whether it is true. What matters is whether the Bible teaches it and the Bible clearly teaches it."

Do not buy into the Romanist's mythologies that justification by faith alone was an invention of the Reformation.

See the following for very informative information about the views of the early church fathers:
http://www.christianbook.com/scripture-ground-pillar-faith-vols-1/william-webster/pd/4678
(Webster and King)

Commenting on the words “justified freely by His grace” in Romans 3:24, Fitzmyer (a Catholic commentary author on Romans) notes: “It should be superfluous to stress . . . that in using dorean and te autou chariti, Paul is not referring to the efficient cause of justification by the former and the formal cause by the latter (as if charis were ‘sanctifying grace’). That is anachronistic exegesis, a distinction born of later medieval and Tridentine [Council of Trent] theology.”

In Fitzmyer’s exposition of Romans 3:27–31. It was in his translation of Romans 3:28 in 1522 that Luther’s appeal to sola fide emerged as seminal for the Reformation understanding of the gospel. Fitzmyer recognizes that this language long predates Luther and can be found in the writings of the early fathers. He frankly states that “in this context” Paul means “by faith alone”.

The RCC today is four or five generations removed from its beginnings. The ancient form held to Nicene orthodoxy and was in fellowship with other churches. The medieval version insisted on Roman supremacy, embraced transubstantiation, and thusly separated itself from other Christian churches. At that time justification and the place of tradition were still open to discussion. At Trent, the Tridentine form (1545–1563) of the church moved it beyond its medieval form by condemning views that had remained open to discussion and adding many more. Next came Vatican I (1868–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). These post-Tridentine versions of Rome theoretically are to be upholding the decisions of Trent, but when one examines the practices of Rome, they have moved outside the bounds and against Trent. For example, rather than supplementing Scripture with tradition, post-Tridentine Rome uses tradition to usurp Scripture.

One must remember that some matters of the faith were never in dispute in the early church until Rome began to augment what was commonly understood, thus provoking the church to respond against her errors.

http://heidelblog.net/2014/10/justif...rian-doctrine/

For that matter, Scripture is clear on the matter so to argue we had no doctrine until it was more clearly articulated is not an argument at all.

Let's look at how Paul frames the issue:
Romans 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Romans 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Romans 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

For Paul, justification by works is antithetical to justification by faith. Justification by faith excludes justification by works, and vice versa. Works can't supplement faith as a principle of justification. If you add works to faith in justification, they cancel each other out.

Differences over justification are motivated by different understandings of grace. In Roman Catholic theology grace is understood as a medicinal substance infused into a person at baptism, elevating nature to supernatural appetites. In Reformation theology grace is understood as God’s favor to those who are dead in sins and ungodly, on account of Christ’s merit alone. Through faith, God gives believers nothing less than Christ and all of his benefits. Among these gifts is rebirth and sanctification, but this renewal is the consequence of justification rather than part of its definition.

Rome's notions of initial and progressive justification place the Catholic on the sacramental treadmill: http://tinyurl.com/75glvdj

See also:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/...formation.html

http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4430976

Origen (185-254 AD): “For God is just, and therefore he could not justify the unjust. Therefore he required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by having faith in Him those who could not be justified by their own works might be justified.” Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.112.

Origen (again): “A man is justified by faith. The works of the law can make no contribution to this. Where there is no faith which might justify the believer, even if there are works of the law these are not based on the foundation of faith. Even if they are good in themselves they cannot justify the one who does them, because faith is lacking, and faith is the mark of those who are justified by God.” Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.136.

Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398) “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.” Source: Didymus the Blind. Commentary on James, 2:26b.

For more see:
http://thecripplegate.com/reprise-th...hurch-fathers/

Augustine is not so black and white and his views evolved. Calvin wrote of him:

"Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings. (Src: A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God)

I do think Augustine tends to confound regeneration, justification and sanctification: he views them all as one on-going process, a process which is only completed on the day of one's earthly death.

Augustine used a Latin translation (only began to study Greek later in life), and gathered his meaning of justification from the Latin verb "justificare" (to make righteous), rather than the Greek verb δικαιόω which means to declare righteous. Thus, for Augustine, if justification means "to make righteous" then righteousness is infused.

A good resource that distills many of Augustine's views:
http://www.puritanpublications.com/...-in-augustines-writings-by-c-matthew-mcmahon/

Thank you, Patrick. That was helpful. I reminded that in Romans 4, Paul says that God justifies the ungodly.

 

[MichaelNZ]

Here are some quotes from the Early Church Fathers, both on salvation by faith plus works, and salvation by faith alone.

 

[RamistThomist]

There are two errors to avoid in discussing with RCC and EO on this topic:

1) Don't make the assumption that "the whole church fell away after the apostles only to be revived by Luther." The website Orthodox Bridge has banned me from commenting because I exploded that assumption they had of Reformed Christians.

2) Don't make the assumption that there is this pure, unbroken stream of TR reformed theology that is easily identifiable and shares the same philosophical worldview, found both in 2nd Century and in the 17th century.