Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[Fervent]

That's a broad statement. I'm sure there were plenty of good and spiritual clergy, the best, whether clergy or laity, occasionally being recognized as saints due to their authentic godliness. There also were certainly a multitude of worldly ones. The church had, within a fragmented and politically divided Europe, continuously spoke against this corruption at least since the first Lateran councils, for many centuries IOW. But the mediaeval values were far from Christlike for many, where pomp and ceremony and benefices and nepotism and avarice, etc, instead ruled the day.

When I say thoroughly corrupt, I don't mean that there weren't truly pious individuals within the church but that corruption and secular politics were deeply intertwined into the structures of the church. There was no level of the church that was untouched by such corruption, and even some who were canonized were desperately wicked.

The confusion with SF begins because with it man is said to be justified...without being justified. He's imputed or declared to be just IOW, and if this is the case then there would be no change, no reason or ability for him to be any better than he was beforehand. In the historic teachings, man is forgiven of sin, washed, cleansed, made a new creation, a child of God with the Holy Spirit now indwelling. He possesses a foreign righteousness (that comes from God on the basis of faith, Phil 3:9) but it's foreign only because he possesses none, in his fallen state, apart from God. Faith is the reestablishment of union with Him-and that union, itself, is the very essence of man's righteousness. And man's unrighteousness or sinfulness was originally foreign as well, as nothing or no one in creation was created to sin.

This seems more an issue with substitutionary atonement than with justification by faith specifically. All justification by faith conveys is that no one puts God in their debt, that there is no work we can do such that God owes us salvation. It is and always will be a gift freely offered.

The point: man was created for communion with God; apart from Him man has no justice or righteousness. Man is lost and cannot find himself; for that God must reach down; grace is essential. But man willfully fell and to the extent possible, with the help of grace while not totally overwhelming us with it, God wants us to willfully rise, to say "yes" instead of "no", and to say "yes" daily and to confirm and strengthen that "yes" throughout our lives. Then, at the end, He judges how we've done with what He's given us. Again, we can always say "no", and turn and walk back away.

Here your issue seems to be with some version of irresistable or irrevocable grace, which goes beyond issues with sola fide.

If justice is merely imputed instead of given, then there's no real justice to lose, and therefore no way to lose salvation.,.apparently? That's where the confusion and differing understandings of the outworkings of Sola Fide enters in, and that's why the church has historically taught that while man is freely justified, that justice is real, not vicarious, from God, and can be compromised and forfeited-by living unjustly, failing to remain in Him.

This is again an issue with substitutionary atonement, or any form of vicarious satisfaction really. Which goes back to Anselm, not Luther.

 

[Mountainmike]

You are skimming past too many details in Acts 17:11

1. Their own magisterium was on record as condemning the teaching of Paul -- yet STILL they chose to "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul were so" - rather than "listen to your own magesterium and your own traditions and let that guide you to ignore whatever scripture says that confirms Paul's teaching".

2. Paul was not telling them what scripture is or redefining scripture or saying "don't believe scripture - believe me instead" or anything of that sort. So they only had scripture and their own magesterium guiding them when the Holy Spirit lead them to hear Paul. They decided to let the Holy Spirit guide their understanding of their own scriptures and "see if" those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul -- were so.

Protestants love to rewrite history.

Sola scriptura is a man made tradition of the reformation, which is logically. scripturally and historically provably false.
The entire edifice of protestantism collapses because of it.

Logically false because scripture would have to say so for to include the highest truth. It does not say it.
Scripturally false because scripture identifies other sources of truth outside itself. The church. Tradition. The power to bind and loose.
Historically false because the faith was not passed down by scripture in early christianity, as scripture and fathers attest it was passed by tradition "handing down of the faith" by those "sent" to preach.

Jesus did not say write this or read this, he said do this

Sola scriptura is the author of 10000 schisms.

Because to claim "scripture says this" is ascribing a MEANING on which all protestants disagree. Scripture is Not just words IT IS MEANING too And even the architects of the reformation disagreed on all the essentials of meaning . Baptism. Method. Effect. Meaning. Eucharist. Soteriology. Necessity for priest hood. End times. Moral issues. Life or choice. LGBT. You name it protestants ALL disagree on it because they do what scripture tells them not to do they "lean on their own understanding" not listen to those SENT to preach or the "pillar of truth" that is the church. The meaning was handed down "paradosis" tradition. WIthout those sent to resolve the differences, there is nowhere to go except for protestants to schism. Again. Again . Again. As protestants do. I even discovered that methodism had a very early reformed branch!


For sure the bereans looked for meaning in scripure that is the OLD testament which was all there was.

And that is why Jesus did what he could to relate to old testament. Riding a donkey as a davidic king (and all else that brings into play)

Take the role of Peter referred as the "office of keys of the kingdom" an inherited office of steward whilst the king is away. So yes look for meaning from old testament!!
Of course when scripture can actually tell protestants the meaning of for example the role ofthe pope they disregard scripture completely!!!

They decide their faith and then "proof text" what they already believe to be true just as Luther did on "sola fidei" - Luther with no authority at all even had the temerity to remove bits of scripture he did not like, like maccabees. When you unhitch from the source of truth as luther , calvin and zwingli did, everything then becomes disputed.
Even to know what is scripture you need the power of the church to resolve disputes. Thats how the canon came about.

But to see what scripture means,look at what the disciples of apostles were handed and so handed down when they were "sent to preach".

We see from Ignatius disciple of John (so ignatius knew what John meant in john 6) a eucharist of the real body (real flesh says justin martyr) valid only if presided by a bishop in succession . Proving the succession exists too!!

John 6 is the words but tradition, so ignatius and the church hands down "tradition" what scripture MEANS. YOu are not free to make it up. And on disputes the church resolves them with the power to bind and loose. Jesus foresaw the need to keep HIS church on track.

Even luther despaired of his monster "sola scriptura" in the end, lamenting "every milk maid now has their own doctrine" which is exactly what happens if you allow all to make up the meaning as all protestants do. So then they disagree on it all.

I was a protestant and evangelical so I know the arguements, before returning to Rome because history only allows that choice.


They should listen to the catholic church that was "sent"

 

[fhansen]

When I say thoroughly corrupt, I don't mean that there weren't truly pious individuals within the church but that corruption and secular politics were deeply intertwined into the structures of the church. There was no level of the church that was untouched by such corruption, and even some who were canonized were desperately wicked.

The church was intertwined with temporal powers for sure-a blessing but ultimately a curse- which the main Protestant denominations weren't immune from being engaged in right off the bat. My only concern is whether or not any of that impacted defined church teachings on the faith-and I maintain that it did not.

This seems more an issue with substitutionary atonement than with justification by faith specifically. All justification by faith conveys is that no one puts God in their debt, that there is no work we can do such that God owes us salvation. It is and always will be a gift freely offered.

No, my post had nothing directly to do with atonement-it had to do with what it means to be justified, how justification is defined, what the justice or righteousness consists of: imputed/declared vs imparted/infused. We both agree that justification is a free gift resulting from faith.

Here your issue seems to be with some version of irresistable or irrevocable grace, which goes beyond issues with sola fide.

Man's will is not uninvolved in his justification because, while he cannot turn himself to God he can still refuse to be turned; he can resist and reject grace, the gift of faith in this case. God's business since the Fall has been all about soliciting a "yes" from man, not about simply and arbitrarily saving a portion of otherwise worthless sinful wretches while damning the rest. Faith is that first humble "yes".

This is again an issue with substitutionary atonement, or any form of vicarious satisfaction really. Which goes back to Anselm, not Luther.

Again, not about atonement. Luther said that the justified man is like a snow-covered dung heap, clean on the outside while still filthy on the inside as he's merely declared to be righteous: simul iustus et peccator. The RCC rejected this concept from the get-go because nothing is changed at justification in that case; man effectively remains as Jesus told the Pharisees they must not remain in Matt 23:27: white-washed tombs.

 

[Fervent]

The church was intertwined with temporal powers for sure-a blessing and the ultimately a curse which the main Protestant denominations weren't immune from being engaged in right off the bat. My only concern is whether or not any of that impacted defined church teachings on the faith-and I maintain that it did not.

I don't think we can neatly separate teaching from conduct, especially moral teaching. The worldly influences certainly altered the church's ethical teachings, which is clearly seen in how the church started with demanding soldiers leave their profession if they are to follow Christ to later engaging in and sanctioning wars. The teaching of the church is not something that happens in a vacuum, so the conduct of those in divine offices cannot be separated from the teaching of the church.

No, my post had nothing directly to do with atonement-it had to do with what it means to be justified, how justification is defined, what the justice or righteousness consists of: imputed/declared vs imparted/infused. We both agree that justification is a free gift resulting from faith.

Whether you recognize it or not, the issue here is how the atonement is viewed. As either actually changing something in the individual, or merely a purely vicarious action on the part of Christ. If justification is a free gift resulting from faith, then the question remains what the complete picture of justification entails. The distinction made by the reformers between justification and sanctification is one of logical ordering, as they are thought to occur inseparably in the believer. So one who is not sanctified was never justified, and one who is justified will continue to be sanctified.

Man's will is not uninvolved in his justification because, while he cannot turn himself to God he can still refuse to be turned; he can resist and reject grace, the gift of faith in this case. God's business since the Fall has been all about soliciting a "yes" from man, not about simply and arbitrarily saving a portion of otherwise worthless sinful wretches while damning the rest. Faith is that first humble "yes".

This seems more about where Luther took Augustine's doctrine of original sin, which was only to extend the logic of it and work out uncompromisingly what must result. The reformer's weren't led astray by their reliance on Scripture, but by their unrelenting logical application of what in their day was unquestionable tradition in the doctrine of original sin, which must lead to total inability on the part of the sinner to evn respond in the affirmative to God's calling. We're getting into areas where I am in agreement with you, as I agree much of the reformer's doctrine was mistaken. These areas are ancillary to sola scriptura and sola fide, though.

Again, not about atonement. Luther said that the justified man is like a snow-covered dung heap, clean on the outside while still filthy on the inside as he's merely declared to be righteous: simul iustus et peccator. The RCC rejected this concept from the get-go because nothing is changed at justification in that case; man effectively remains as Jesus told the Pharisees they must not remain in Matt 23:27: white-washed tombs.

That's entirely about what the atonement means for the sinner, because what Luther is saying is that the atonement is an act of book-keeping. A move from the column of "sinner" to "saint" on account of a vicarious satisfaction. The issue with the reformer's isn't with their rejection of historic teaching, but their uncompromising logical application of widely accepted doctrine. If the atonement is a purely vicarious satisfaction, then it is only natural that it not result in any sort of actual change in the individual and merely their standing before God. A change in a verdict of "guilty" to one of acquital, on account of nothing internal to the individual. So here I again agree with your view that they were mistaken, I simply think you have misdiagnosed the issue.

 

[fhansen]

I don't think we can neatly separate teaching from conduct, especially moral teaching. The worldly influences certainly altered the church's ethical teachings, which is clearly seen in how the church started with demanding soldiers leave their profession if they are to follow Christ to later engaging in and sanctioning wars. The teaching of the church is not something that happens in a vacuum, so the conduct of those in divine offices cannot be separated from the teaching of the church.

Should we doubt Luther’s basic theology because he wrote antisemitic opinions that most likely influenced German history, or stated that those taking part in the Peasants Revolt should be exterminated? Maybe we should, IDK.

But church teachings on war are of a different kind to begin with. We have only the writings of a handful of early fathers who taught pacifism, no official or conciliar or centralized, unified magisterial teaching or catechesis about it. But pacifism was more likely anyway by the earliest Christians-a group of powerless people persecuted by the very state who might otherwise employ them as soldiers, but once Christians became citizens of that state, a state which was by then being attacked by barbarians, the concept of fighting back and saving innocent life became far too practical of a concern. Just war theories developed from there which the church did officially adopt at some point. And just war theories have always been concerned with limiting war.

Whether you recognize it or not, the issue here is how the atonement is viewed. As either actually changing something in the individual, or merely a purely vicarious action on the part of Christ. If justification is a free gift resulting from faith, then the question remains what the complete picture of justification entails. The distinction made by the reformers between justification and sanctification is one of logical ordering, as they are thought to occur inseparably in the believer. So one who is not sanctified was never justified, and one who is justified will continue to be sanctified.

Well, at least you're recognizing the discussion as being focused on justification, which was my point. Of course, the atonement impacts every aspect of the Christian faith, not the least being that of justification. But you maintained that my paragraph in question was about atonement, not justification, which was its entire subject.

As far as the distinction the reformers made between justification and sanctification, again, they were just plain wrong, the two being part and parcel of the same thing, the same work of God in man with sanctification being confirmation and growth in the justice or righteousness or holiness first received at justification. Do we want to continue to grow in the image and likeness of God, or not? And from there a question naturally arises: is sanctification, which is necessary for eternal life (Rom 6:23), guaranteed to the justified man?

This seems more about where Luther took Augustine's doctrine of original sin, which was only to extend the logic of it and work out uncompromisingly what must result. The reformer's weren't led astray by their reliance on Scripture, but by their unrelenting logical application of what in their day was unquestionable tradition in the doctrine of original sin, which must lead to total inability on the part of the sinner to evn respond in the affirmative to God's calling. We're getting into areas where I am in agreement with you, as I agree much of the reformer's doctrine was mistaken. These areas are ancillary to sola scriptura and sola fide, though.

First of all the church has never accepted everything Augustine taught, or every nuance of his teachings. But either way the reformers defined original sin differently from the CC. For the reformers the state of original sin that fallen man exists in is concupiscence itself, a new nature, a "sin nature", which makes him totally incapable of any right moral choices. In Catholicism man doesn't gain anything new at the Fall, rather he loses something; alienation from God defines his falleness, that which renders him unjust. Concupiscence, disordered desire, is the natural result of the door now being thrust open to moral relativity by Adam with his denial of God's authority, because morality became dependent on man's opinion then-and true self-control was consequently lost.

Along with this the CC teaches that man's will was not totally corrupted at the fall but weakened, while the law that had been written in his heart at creation was now dimmed, open to being overridden by his own "laws". Concupiscence still remains to be battled against even in the justified man until he's perfected in love, until he's attained his purpose, presumably not fully achievable until the next life when he meets God "face to face".

That's entirely about what the atonement means for the sinner, because what Luther is saying is that the atonement is an act of book-keeping. A move from the column of "sinner" to "saint" on account of a vicarious satisfaction.

The atonement is about the reconciliation of man with God, a work of God the Son. He accomplished peace and fellowship between man and God. Defining justification specifically is our purpose here- even if it might be off topic of the OP? This was a primary focus of Luther’s thoughts in any case-as it was a primary reason for the reformation in his view. But faith means we’ve come full circle back to God from Adam’s rejection of Him; we now depend on Him, the only true source of righteousness, instead of on ourselves for it. Forgiveness of unrighteous is part of the justification equation, while being filled with righteousness is the other part. So:

“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.” Rom 8:1-4, 12-14

Luther was wrong. The Holy Spirit works in us to overcome sin-that which opposes God and earns us death- in order to realize eternal life. And we must cooperate in that work. It’s not solely about not being counted a sinner, it’s about not being one. Even though we won’t succeed at this perfectly in this life, that’s the path that faith puts us on, that Jesus made possible for us, that we must be on: overcoming more than backsliding. Then, again, God will judge how we did with what we’ve been given, every walk being different for each person depending on age, knowledge, intelligence, grace, background, etc, etc. .

 

[Valletta]

When education is readily available, it seems to me dereliction to put the onus of interpretation onto anyone but oneself. The real issue is one church claims that the laity are incapable of having a truly personal relationship with God and can only do so through the mediation of a class of presbyters. I see no use for such mediation.

I can tell you that the Catholic Church recognizes that establishing a personal relationship with God is the key to holiness. A priest does not need to be a mediator.

 

[Fervent]

Should we doubt Luther’s basic theology because he wrote antisemitic opinions that most likely influenced German history, or stated that those taking part in the Peasants Revolt should be exterminated? Maybe we should, IDK.

But church teachings on war are of a different kind to begin with. We have only the writings of a handful of early fathers who taught pacifism, no official or conciliar or centralized, unified magisterial teaching or catechesis about it. But pacifism was more likely anyway by the earliest Christians-a group of powerless people persecuted by the very state who might otherwise employ them as soldiers, but once Christians became citizens of that state, a state which was by then being attacked by barbarians, the concept of fighting back and saving innocent life became far too practical of a concern. Just war theories developed from there which the church did officially adopt at some point. And just war theories have always been concerned with limiting war.

As far as magisterial teaching goes, such things really didn't begin until the 3rd century but we do have catechesis such as the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus that specifically forbid soldiers from being accepted and says that they have despised God. And changing teaching for practicality is exactly what I am talking about regarding becoming worldly, because the church became so invested in matters of secular government that its spiritual authority was compromised by secular politics.

Well, at least you're recognizing the discussion as being focused on justification, which was my point. Of course, the atonement impacts every aspect of the Christian faith, not the least being that of justification. But you maintained that my paragraph in question was about atonement, not justification, which was its entire subject.

The primary disagreement you seem to be raising in the section I quoted is to an understanding of the atonement, with the issues regarding justification flowing from it. So justification is secondary, rather than primary.

As far as the distinction the reformers made between justification and sanctification, again, they were just plain wrong, the two being part and parcel of the same thing, the same work of God in man with sanctification being confirmation and growth in the justice or righteousness or holiness first received at justification. Do we want to continue to grow in the image and likeness of God, or not? And from there a question naturally arises: is sanctification, which is necessary for eternal life (Rom 6:23), guaranteed to the justified man?

I agree where protestant theology has gone regarding the radical separation between justification and sanctification is mistaken, but I'm not sure that originates with Luther necessarrily or simply how people have read Luther. Part of the issue is Luther was highly polemical, so he often emphasized things to a point of fault. What Luther was responding to has to be kept in mind when his writings on how we are justified is understood, and that is a scholastic penance theology that treats God's work as incomplete and needing human efforts to perfect it.

First of all the church has never accepted everything Augustine taught, or every nuance of his teachings. But either way the reformers defined original sin differently from the CC. For the reformers the state of original sin that fallen man exists in is concupiscence itself, a new nature, a "sin nature", which makes him totally incapable of any right moral choices. In Catholicism man doesn't gain anything new at the Fall, rather he loses something; alienation from God defines his falleness, that which renders him unjust. Concupiscence, disordered desire, is the natural result of the door now being thrust open to moral relativity by Adam with his denial of God's authority, because morality became dependent on man's opinion then-and true self-control was consequently lost.

My reading of history has such distinctions as you're making arising after the Reformer's worked what is found in Augustine to such precision, though it is true not everything Augustine wrote was accepted by the magisterium. Even from a semi-Augustinian position, though, the line from original sin to total inability/depravity is a short walk unless inconsistency is entertained.

Along with this the CC teaches that man's will was not totally corrupted at the fall but weakened, while the law that had been written in his heart at creation was now dimmed, open to being overridden by his own "laws". Concupiscence still remains to be battled against even in the justified man until he's perfected in love, until he's attained his purpose, presumably not fully achievable until the next life when he meets God "face to face".

The atonement is about the reconciliation of man with God, a work of God the Son. He accomplished peace and fellowship between man and God. Defining justification specifically is our purpose here- even if it might be off topic of the OP? This was a primary focus of Luther’s thoughts in any case-as it was a primary reason for the reformation in his view. But faith means we’ve come full circle back to God from Adam’s rejection of Him; we now depend on Him, the only true source of righteousness, instead of on ourselves for it. Forgiveness of unrighteous is part of the justification equation, while being filled with righteousness is the other part. So:

“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.” Rom 8:1-4, 12-14

Luther was wrong. The Holy Spirit works in us to overcome sin-that which opposes God and earns us death- in order to realize eternal life. And we must cooperate in that work. It’s not solely about not being counted a sinner, it’s about not being one. Even though we won’t succeed at this perfectly in this life, that’s the path that faith puts us on, that Jesus made possible for us, that we must be on: overcoming more than backsliding. Then, again, God will judge how we did with what we’ve been given, every walk being different for each person depending on age, knowledge, intelligence, grace, background, etc, etc. .

Whether Luther was wrong in his conclusions here are rather irrelevant to the question of sola scriptura, or even sola fide. For sola scriptura, it is simply the doctrine that the most directly traceable apostolic tradition is superior to any and all subsequent teaching, and there is a reasonable amount of understandability and sufficiency. Sola fide just needs the agreement that salvation is a work of God alone and faith is the only means of appropriating that work. That is not to say a lot of wrongheaded things haven't been said in the name of sola fide, especially those that deny the efficacy of expressions of faith like those found in the sacraments or in acts of contrition and charity, but those abuses do not bear on the truth of sola fide.

 

[Fervent]

I can tell you that the Catholic Church recognizes that establishing a personal relationship with God is the key to holiness. A priest does not need to be a mediator.

So a relationship with God can be developed without relying on a priest for communion, or confessing your sins to a priest who then pronounces absolution?

 

[Valletta]

So a relationship with God can be developed without relying on a priest for communion, or confessing your sins to a priest who then pronounces absolution?

Of course you can develop a personal relationship without a priest. Personal prayer is crucial, that's why you see all of those kneelers for Catholics, and priests typically spend a minimum of three hours a day praying. But also Catholics and Eastern Orthodox take very seriously the statements of Jesus to "do this" meaning the consecration of bread and wine by a priest and the consumption of the Blood and Body of Our Lord. You can't get more personal than receiving Our Lord. Jesus told us how important this is:
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:53 RSVCE
The Word of God spells out many avenues which with we may receive grace and as a Catholic it makes sense I should participate in as many of those avenues as I can.

 

[Fervent]

Of course you can develop a personal relationship without a priest. Personal prayer is crucial, that's why you see all of those kneelers, and priests typically spend a minimum of three hours a day praying. But also Catholics and Eastern Orthodox take very seriously the statements of Jesus to "do this" meaning the consecration of bread and wine by a priest and the consumption of the Blood and Body of Our Lord. You can't get more personal than receiving Our Lord. Jesus told us how important this is:
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:53 RSVCE

This doesn't seem to answer my question, especially the bit about whether or not confession to a priest to receive absolution is necessary.

 

[JSRG]

As far as magisterial teaching goes, such things really didn't begin until the 3rd century but we do have catechesis such as the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus that specifically forbid soldiers from being accepted and says that they have despised God. And changing teaching for practicality is exactly what I am talking about regarding becoming worldly, because the church became so invested in matters of secular government that its spiritual authority was compromised by secular politics.

While I am aware that various early Christian writers did criticize those who served in the military, it is not quite clear how much of this is due to opposition to any serving in a military so much as the circumstances of the Roman military; that is, the military that engaged in pagan practices while being the military of the pagan empire. Being a soldier in the army therefore meant having a reasonable probability of having to get involved with pagan religious practices somehow. This page for example argues that they weren't opposed to military service per se, but military service of the places like the Roman empire (which would have been what the majority of the church, and certainly those for which the original Greek of the Apostolic Tradition would have been written for, would have had as any option for military service):

John Helgeland, David Bercot Church Fathers and Military | Military and War - How Did the Early Church Fathers View war and the military, Join the Roman Army, Emperor Constantine and Christians, early christianity war conflict, military second centur

www.churchhistory101.com

Here is the historical context: every 20 to 40 years Christianity would come under persecution and get slapped around. Pastors and bishops would be arrested, thrown in jail, and some would be executed. Laypeople would be tortured and forced to sprinkle salt on the altar to the empire at the risk of being thrown to wild animals in an amphitheatre. Roman soldiers were known for their cruelty in battle, but they were also known for their cruelty towards Christians during these times of persecution. Even during times of peace Roman soldiers had some license to make harsh demands on average citizens. In addition, to be in the Roman army almost demanded making an oath to the greatness of the Emperor and offering sacrifices to his patron god. This was idolatry.

With this context in mind, why would Christians be encouraged to serve in the military? The citations used by Bercot are each commenting on military service (or joining the army) for Rome, not military service or warfare in general. I know a man who was a pastor in Cuba when Fidel Castro led the Communist takeover. He fled with his family, but many of his friends were ripped from their beds in the middle of the night, beaten, imprisoned, and some killed. Would it surprise anyone if Christians in Communist Cuba were discouraged from enlisting in the military after the takeover? You cannot compare military service in the modern-day army of the USA with the Roman empire. You might disagree with Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq; you might think the USA is imperialistic, but you simply cannot objectively compare soldiers in the USA to those in the Roman empire in this way.

Some of the early fathers discouraged military service (mainly Tertullian, but we will see below that his position was not consistent), but they also discouraged believers from involvement in politics, acting, teaching "worldly" knowledge, the gladiator games (or ANY "sport" in the coliseum). Overall, they speak negatively about politics. Does this mean that we should discourage believers from serving in the political arena as well? The problem with this is that the New Testament does not have this prohibition against joining the army or politics, or sport.

(it goes into more details on specifics, but the above are the summary points)

In regards to the Apostolic Tradition specifically (which is discussed, albeit only briefly, on the above linked page), it does say that catechumans and believers are prohibited from becoming soldiers, saying "The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God" or in another translation, "If a catechumen or a believer seeks to become a soldier, they must be rejected, for they have despised God" But what is the reason for this? Again, is the issue with any military service, or the military service of places like the Roman military which would have obviously involved various problems with things like paganism? It doesn't say.

 

[Fervent]

While I am aware that various early Christian writers did criticize those who served in the military, it is not quite clear how much of this is due to opposition to any serving in a military so much as the circumstances of the Roman military; that is, the military that engaged in pagan practices while being the military of the pagan empire. Being a soldier in the army therefore meant having a reasonable probability of having to get involved with pagan religious practices somehow. This page for example argues that they weren't opposed to military service per se, but military service of the places like the Roman empire (which would have been what the majority of the church, and certainly those for which the original Greek of the Apostolic Tradition would have been written for, would have had as any option for military service):

John Helgeland, David Bercot Church Fathers and Military | Military and War - How Did the Early Church Fathers View war and the military, Join the Roman Army, Emperor Constantine and Christians, early christianity war conflict, military second centur

www.churchhistory101.com

Here is the historical context: every 20 to 40 years Christianity would come under persecution and get slapped around. Pastors and bishops would be arrested, thrown in jail, and some would be executed. Laypeople would be tortured and forced to sprinkle salt on the altar to the empire at the risk of being thrown to wild animals in an amphitheatre. Roman soldiers were known for their cruelty in battle, but they were also known for their cruelty towards Christians during these times of persecution. Even during times of peace Roman soldiers had some license to make harsh demands on average citizens. In addition, to be in the Roman army almost demanded making an oath to the greatness of the Emperor and offering sacrifices to his patron god. This was idolatry.

With this context in mind, why would Christians be encouraged to serve in the military? The citations used by Bercot are each commenting on military service (or joining the army) for Rome, not military service or warfare in general. I know a man who was a pastor in Cuba when Fidel Castro led the Communist takeover. He fled with his family, but many of his friends were ripped from their beds in the middle of the night, beaten, imprisoned, and some killed. Would it surprise anyone if Christians in Communist Cuba were discouraged from enlisting in the military after the takeover? You cannot compare military service in the modern-day army of the USA with the Roman empire. You might disagree with Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq; you might think the USA is imperialistic, but you simply cannot objectively compare soldiers in the USA to those in the Roman empire in this way.

Some of the early fathers discouraged military service (mainly Tertullian, but we will see below that his position was not consistent), but they also discouraged believers from involvement in politics, acting, teaching "worldly" knowledge, the gladiator games (or ANY "sport" in the coliseum). Overall, they speak negatively about politics. Does this mean that we should discourage believers from serving in the political arena as well? The problem with this is that the New Testament does not have this prohibition against joining the army or politics, or sport.

(it goes into more details on specifics, but the above are the summary points)

In regards to the Apostolic Tradition specifically (which is discussed, albeit only briefly, on the above linked page), it does say that catechumans and believers are prohibited from becoming soldiers, saying "The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God" or in another translation, "If a catechumen or a believer seeks to become a soldier, they must be rejected, for they have despised God" But what is the reason for this? Again, is the issue with any military service, or the military service of places like the Roman military which would have obviously involved various problems with things like paganism? It doesn't say.

This sounds more like post-hoc justification, and is somewhat irrelevant to the point at hand. The reasons for changing the teaching on soldiers were political, because the church had become a wing of the state. That secularization of the church calls into question the legitimacy of its authority when Jesus made clear he did not come to establish an Earthly kingdom but to call people to the kingdom of God. It is clear that whatever the church in this sense is, it is in no way distinct from any other political power. It's been subject to the same corrupting influences as any other, to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[JSRG]

This sounds more like post-hoc justification, and is somewhat irrelevant to the point at hand.

The claim was that the teaching on soldiers changed and went against what the early Christians wrote. If the reason for the prohibition was because being a soldier would likely make you do things like sacrifice to pagan gods (there were stories Christian soldiers in the Roman empire who were martyred for refusal to do so), and it was therefore not based on the simple status of being as soldier, then the "change" is not really a change at all.

The reasons for changing the teaching on soldiers were political, because the church had become a wing of the state.

Or because the reasons against being a soldier weren't really applicable anymore.

 

[Fervent]

The claim was that the teaching on soldiers changed and went against what the early Christians wrote. If the reason for the prohibition was because being a soldier would likely make you do things like sacrifice to pagan gods (there were stories Christian soldiers in the Roman empire who were martyred for refusal to do so), and it was therefore not based on the simple status of being as soldier, then the "change" is not really a change at all.

Yes, but the reasoning involved is looking at what is an obvious change(soldiers forbidden/soldiers not forbidden) and then reasoning that no real change occured based on speculation regarding why the prohibition existed in the first place. We don't know why the prohibition existed, only that it did, and that the changes involved primarily involved changes in political status of the church from a persecuted church to a church with the endorsement of the state.

Or because the reasons against being a soldier weren't really applicable anymore.

Based purely on after the fact speculation.

 

[fhansen]

As far as magisterial teaching goes, such things really didn't begin until the 3rd century but we do have catechesis such as the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus that specifically forbid soldiers from being accepted and says that they have despised God. And changing teaching for practicality is exactly what I am talking about regarding becoming worldly, because the church became so invested in matters of secular government that its spiritual authority was compromised by secular politics.

It's not necessarily worldly, just realistic even from a godly perspective-and even before the church became overly embroiled in politics. While pacifism was the rule for the early church, there simply was no universal teaching on it. There are instances of burials of Christian soldiers pre-Constantine, for example. And even that political embroilment could be a steppingstone, or used by God in any case. The church was the one bonding agent or glue that held the fabric of society together in the west after the fall of the Roman Empire and through the dark and middle ages which was marked by political division consisting of multiple states and kingdoms. This also gave it a position from which to spread the gospel further than ever. And that gospel was not compromised. If Constantine- or his sons, in any case- supported Arianism, the church nonetheless solidly condemned it and continued to do so in the councils following Nicaea. Two hundred years later, in 529, the church eloquently laid down at council the most thorough teachings on grace and its necessity for the justification and salvation of man that I've read anywhere, producing a solid foundation for then current as well as future teachings.

The church, inspired by the gospel of love as well as truth and order and meaning, was already building hospitals that awed the public because they’d treat even their enemies, and would go on to build thousands more of those along with orphanages, to develop the educational systems, lower and upper/university, beginning with the learning that had been preserved in monasteries, to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, inspire countless hours of volunteer work and countless amounts of money donated as it upheld the basic dignity of man, to promote the arts and sciences and the pursuit of excellence in general. It gave meaning and purpose and hope to a lost and dying world. And that’s why it was considered so important to preserve and protect the faith from a dark and so often hostile world.

Inspired by the ideal given them by the church, saints or just common folk would go on to serve God in a variety of ways, giving up their own possessions to minister to the poor, the sick, the down-hearted, the uneducated. Whole new orders would be created just to serve those purposes.

The primary disagreement you seem to be raising in the section I quoted is to an understanding of the atonement, with the issues regarding justification flowing from it. So justification is secondary, rather than primary.

Well, that’s a given but either way, justification was, again, as Luther put it, the crux of the reason for the Reformation so that's what I’ve focused on here to begin with.

I agree where protestant theology has gone regarding the radical separation between justification and sanctification is mistaken, but I'm not sure that originates with Luther necessarrily or simply how people have read Luther.

For one thing Luther can be read in different ways depending on when he wrote and what, specifically, was being addressed. But I’d submit that the doctrine of Sola Fide, itself, opened the door to confusion since it allows for antinomianism at one extreme and requires qualifications or the addition of other conditions in order to ensure that the requirement for faith doesn’t radically separate us from the requirement to be and to live righteously, lawfully, after justification.

To put it in terms of the atonement, then: What did Jesus accomplish? Was it the forgiveness of all sin past, present and future as long as I believe-believe in Him and some set of truths regarding His work such as belief in that very forgiveness of sin? Or did he make possible genuine righteousness now, the “gift of righteous” (Rom 5:17), that means that we now have a gift and a responsibility to embrace and express and cultivate that gift with the help of grace, with that righteousness leading to eternal life?

What Luther was responding to has to be kept in mind when his writings on how we are justified is understood, and that is a scholastic penance theology that treats God's work as incomplete and needing human efforts to perfect it.

Luther taught that nothing except a declared righteousness was necessary in order to please God and enter heaven. This is inconsistent with historic teachings. Since I doubt you’ve read it, here's an excerpt from the 2nd Council of Orange in 529 AD, coming after the listing of multiple canons all insisting on the absolute necessity of grace in order to even turn man to God:

“And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but "to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (Jas. 1:17). And again, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven" (John 3:27). There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient.

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.”

My reading of history has such distinctions as you're making arising after the Reformer's worked what is found in Augustine to such precision, though it is true not everything Augustine wrote was accepted by the magisterium. Even from a semi-Augustinian position, though, the line from original sin to total inability/depravity is a short walk unless inconsistency is entertained.

Not sure why. Again, it depends on how one defines original sin to begin with.

Whether Luther was wrong in his conclusions here are rather irrelevant to the question of sola scriptura, or even sola fide.

Well, that’s certainly an interesting way to look at it, since his opinions on sola fide were based on scripture alone and hugely influential in ripping the church apart.

For sola scriptura, it is simply the doctrine that the most directly traceable apostolic tradition is superior to any and all subsequent teaching, and there is a reasonable amount of understandability and sufficiency.

I have to say that I didn’t quite get this. What “directly traceable apostolic tradition” are we talking about? One problem with Sola Scriptura is that it assumes the superiority of Scripture over Tradition, such that anything that cannot be found in scripture is ipso facto relegated to the “falsehood” or “unprovable” bin. But Scripture, itself, cannot be proven to be true any more certainly than Tradition can be.

Sola fide just needs the agreement that salvation is a work of God alone and faith is the only means of appropriating that work. That is not to say a lot of wrongheaded things haven't been said in the name of sola fide, especially those that deny the efficacy of expressions of faith like those found in the sacraments or in acts of contrition and charity, but those abuses do not bear on the truth of sola fide.

Salvation is a work initiated by God alone, then continued by God while cooperated in by us. Salvation is a journey of man and God together, with God at the helm where He always should have been.

 

[Fervent]

It's not necessarily worldly, just realistic even from a godly perspective-and even before the church became overly embroiled in politics. While pacifism was the rule for the early church, there simply was no universal teaching on it. There are instances of burials of Christian soldiers pre-Constantine, for example. And even that political embroilment could be a steppingstone, or used by God in any case. The church was the one bonding agent or glue that held the fabric of society together in the west after the fall of the Roman Empire and through the dark and middle ages which was marked by political division consisting of multiple states and kingdoms. This also gave it a position from which to spread the gospel further than ever. And that gospel was not compromised. If Constantine- or his sons, in any case- supported Arianism, the church nonetheless solidly condemned it and continued to do so in the councils following Nicaea. Two hundred years later, in 529, the church eloquently laid down at council the most thorough teachings on grace and its necessity for the justification and salvation of man that I've read anywhere, producing a solid foundation for then current as well as future teachings.

The church, inspired by the gospel of love as well as truth and order and meaning, was already building hospitals that awed the public because they’d treat even their enemies, and would go on to build thousands more of those along with orphanages, to develop the educational systems, lower and upper/university, beginning with the learning that had been preserved in monasteries, to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, inspire countless hours of volunteer work and countless amounts of money donated as it upheld the basic dignity of man, to promote the arts and sciences and the pursuit of excellence in general. It gave meaning and purpose and hope to a lost and dying world. And that’s why it was considered so important to preserve and protect the faith from a dark and so often hostile world.

Inspired by the ideal given them by the church, saints or just common folk would go on to serve God in a variety of ways, giving up their own possessions to minister to the poor, the sick, the down-hearted, the uneducated. Whole new orders would be created just to serve those purposes.

This is far afield from our discussion, and seems to be a far more idealistic painting of the church than the historical picture warrants. There was certainly a great deal of good that has come through the church, but that doesn't wash out the compromised nature of it through its offices often being for sale or being granted on a basis of nepotism and the like. That even the papacy was at times sold to the highest bidder is a serious problem and causes serious questions for the integrity of the teaching offices.

Well, that’s a given but either way, justification was, again, as Luther put it, the crux of the reason for the Reformation so that's what I’ve focused on here to begin with.

The reformation was a hydra, and while Luther largely precipitated it his voice is not the only one that matters. Even people like Erasmus who were opposed to the reformation played an important part in shaping the overall ethos of reformation theology.

For one thing Luther can be read in different ways depending on when he wrote and what, specifically, was being addressed. But I’d submit that the doctrine of Sola Fide, itself, opened the door to confusion since it allows for antinomianism at one extreme and requires qualifications or the addition of other conditions in order to ensure that the requirement for faith doesn’t radically separate us from the requirement to be and to live righteously, lawfully, after justification.

If anything, Paul is responsible for the doctrine of sola fide since it is essentially derived from treating Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians as being normative for the rest of Scripture. Luther may have been the first to put such an extreme focus on it, but that is because of the historical circumstances in which Luther found himself. The reformers certainly overcorrected, and the pendulum swung too far away from an authentic penance theology, but sola fide can only be understood as a response to a penance theology which legitimized the sale of promises of deliverance from suffering among other issues.

To put it in terms of the atonement, then: What did Jesus accomplish? Was it the forgiveness of all sin past, present and future as long as I believe-believe in Him and some set of truths regarding His work such as belief in that very forgiveness of sin? Or did he make possible genuine righteousness now, the “gift of righteous” (Rom 5:17), that means that we now have a gift and a responsibility to embrace and express and cultivate that gift with the help of grace, with that righteousness leading to eternal life?

Depends on which model we believe is the truest account of the atonement. But if we hold to a satisfaction model, we must either regard his sacrifice as incomplete or recognize that there is nothing we could add or remove from what He has accomplished on our account. Which would mean that there could be no requirement for additional righteous obedience on our part, because either Christ has provided a full satisfaction or His work is incomplete. So the fault lies not with Luther, but with Anselm. Luther just worked out what he found in the church without compromising the consistency of his logic to preserve the traditional teachings regarding it.

Luther taught that nothing except a declared righteousness was necessary in order to please God and enter heaven. This is inconsistent with historic teachings. Since I doubt you’ve read it, here's an excerpt from the 2nd Council of Orange in 529 AD, coming after the listing of multiple canons all insisting on the absolute necessity of grace in order to even turn man to God:

Imputation of righteousness is a separate issue from sola fide. And I'm still not sure why you're railing against Luther. Have I not made it clear that I don't agree with Luther, and only accept sola fide in a qualified state? And I'm not sure why you would presume anything about what I have or have not read.

“And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but "to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (Jas. 1:17). And again, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven" (John 3:27). There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient.

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.”

Not sure why. Again, it depends on how one defines original sin to begin with.

It certainly does depend on how original sin is defined, but a semi-Augustinian position treats the imago dei as having been completely destroyed so there remains nothing in man that can respond to God's goodness in the gospel. It doesn't take adding anything to the human nature for the T in TULIP to be in play, and the traditional Catholic views on original sin basically refuse to see their position to its logical conclusions. Which is why Cassian's response to the Pelagian controversy is so important, because he recognized that the imago dei was not destroyed only fatally wounded.

Well, that’s certainly an interesting way to look at it, since his opinions on sola fide were based on scripture alone and hugely influential in ripping the church apart.

You give Luther far too much credit. He just struck a match on a barrel of gunpowder that was already primed.

I have to say that I didn’t quite get this. What “directly traceable apostolic tradition” are we talking about? One problem with Sola Scriptura is that it assumes the superiority of Scripture over Tradition, such that anything that cannot be found in scripture is ipso facto relegated to the “falsehood” or “unprovable” bin. But Scripture, itself, cannot be proven to be true any more certainly than Tradition can be.

Directly traceable apostolic tradition is the preserved writings of the apostles. Not teachings that have been transmitted down in a game of telephone, but those committed to writing. And what you're describing doesn't sound like sola scriptura to me, but a caricature and misunderstanding of sola scriptura. Tradition isn't relegated to falsehood or unproveable, but is seen as playing a supplementary role to Scripture and where apparent contradictions exist tradition is to be rejected. Sola scriptura simply rejects placing the traditions that developed within the church over time on the same level as what is written in Scripture, no more, no less.

Salvation is a work initiated by God alone, then continued by God while cooperated in by us. Salvation is a journey of man and God together, with God at the helm where He always should have been.

That's all well and good, but it seems to me that if we cooperate in our salvation then it can't properly be called salvation. Salvation involves being rescued, because we are incapable of delivering ourselves. But here we're getting into a whole other thicket with soteriology.

 

[fhansen]

This is far afield from our discussion, and seems to be a far more idealistic painting of the church than the historical picture warrants. There was certainly a great deal of good that has come through the church, but that doesn't wash out the compromised nature of it through its offices often being for sale or being granted on a basis of nepotism and the like. That even the papacy was at times sold to the highest bidder is a serious problem and causes serious questions for the integrity of the teaching offices.

Of course it’s serious, because sin is serious! But sin is also universal while absolute impeccability is not. We Should expect the best from the church while acknowledging that the treasure she held won’t necessarily always be appreciated by all those in charge of holding it at any one point in time. It takes time and maturity for the light to be comprehended and fully embraced and I believe that humanity is closer than we’ve ever been to that time even as the darkness is also growing all around. Either way, there will be those who are positively affected by it while others will abuse or in any case fail to align themselves with it.

And by the same token, that compromising doesn’t wash out the good that the church has done nor does clerical simony or purchased benefices, offices, et al mean that the “deposit of faith” has been compromised even when it’s definitely been ignored, overridden, abused, exploited.

The reformation was a hydra, and while Luther largely precipitated it his voice is not the only one that matters. Even people like Erasmus who were opposed to the reformation played an important part in shaping the overall ethos of reformation theology.

IDK. They certainly didn’t give Erasmus much of an ear, while he was one of the few voices of reason and moderation IMO.

If anything, Paul is responsible for the doctrine of sola fide since it is essentially derived from treating Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians as being normative for the rest of Scripture. Luther may have been the first to put such an extreme focus on it, but that is because of the historical circumstances in which Luther found himself. The reformers certainly overcorrected, and the pendulum swung too far away from an authentic penance theology, but sola fide can only be understood as a response to a penance theology which legitimized the sale of promises of deliverance from suffering among other issues.

Depends on which model we believe is the truest account of the atonement. But if we hold to a satisfaction model, we must either regard his sacrifice as incomplete or recognize that there is nothing we could add or remove from what He has accomplished on our account. Which would mean that there could be no requirement for additional righteous obedience on our part, because either Christ has provided a full satisfaction or His work is incomplete. So the fault lies not with Luther, but with Anselm. Luther just worked out what he found in the church without compromising the consistency of his logic to preserve the traditional teachings regarding it.

The atonement was meant to satisfy God’s demands on man regardless of how it's characterized. So what did Jesus do and what, if anything, is to be man’s response? We love Him because He first loves us is one way to put it. That love is unconditional from God’s side (this brings up another error of some reformers, limited atonement, that God does not love all, that He does not want all to be saved) but man can still place his conditions on it. He can reject that love at any point, which means he’ll also fail to love as he should -and that failure is the foundation of the sin that separates us from God and neighbor-and will continue to. Grace/faith/justification are either carte blanc reprieves from the penalty of sin and are therefore vehicles straight to heaven or they still involve demands on man.

I recently encountered the Protestant discussion emanating from the 19th century, I believe, on “ Law and Gospel”: I was a bit shocked to see it worded so bluntly but the basic position was that Scripture is speaking of the law whenever any trace of threat is implied while it’s teaching the gospel whenever no threat, only favor, is spoken of. That’s a radical perversion of the gospel message but an understandable take on Sola Fide. Does faith alone means that God doesn’t care what we do as long as we believe, as if faith covers all the requirements for righteousness and salvation from man's side of the coin? There is no confusion here with the Catholic church, nor the Eastern Orthodox if I may say. Righteous living is absolutely a requirement for entrance into heaven, even if the only access to that righteousness is grace, is God IOW. Can grace be bought? Heck no. Does more grace come to the cheerful giver? Heck yes. That’s why the sheep and not the goats in Matt 25 gained entrance into heaven because they gave- while motivated by love.

Two quotes from Augustine:

“Does love bring about the keeping of the commandments, or does the keeping of the commandments bring about love? But who can doubt that love comes first? For the one who does not love has no reason for keeping the commandments". St Augustine

"The law was given that grace might be sought, grace was given so that the law might be fulfilled." St Augustine

Imputation of righteousness is a separate issue from sola fide. And I'm still not sure why you're railing against Luther. Have I not made it clear that I don't agree with Luther, and only accept sola fide in a qualified state? And I'm not sure why you would presume anything about what I have or have not read.

You’re right, I should not presume. I had thought that I’d provided a link to that council earlier in this thread or at least had mentioned it but that was another thread recently-and many before that where I never heard a word of response about it, only derision in one cases for even mentioning it from someone who wouldn't read it.

It certainly does depend on how original sin is defined, but a semi-Augustinian position treats the imago dei as having been completely destroyed so there remains nothing in man that can respond to God's goodness in the gospel. It doesn't take adding anything to the human nature for the T in TULIP to be in play, and the traditional Catholic views on original sin basically refuse to see their position to its logical conclusions. Which is why Cassian's response to the Pelagian controversy is so important, because he recognized that the imago dei was not destroyed only fatally wounded.

The Catholic position as far as I’ve studied and regardless of Augustine is that the imago dei was not destroyed but very much compromised, overridden dimmed but not extinguished even though fallen man could never lift himself up to approach and find God apart from grace, apart from God finding us first IOW.

You give Luther far too much credit. He just struck a match on a barrel of gunpowder that was already primed.

I think he would’ve preferred to defuse it, but only added more powder at the end of the day.

Directly traceable apostolic tradition is the preserved writings of the apostles. Not teachings that have been transmitted down in a game of telephone, but those committed to writing.

I think that’s the net effect of SS though: Scripture trumps tradition while Scripture, itself, attests that not all teachings were written. That belief is presumptuous.

Sola scriptura simply rejects placing the traditions that developed within the church over time on the same level as what is written in Scripture, no more, no less.

And yet its pure speculation, often resulting in doctrine, that says that Christ isn’t really present in the Eucharist, that the Eucharist should at best be an occasional memorial service as a sidenote to the regular assembly, that baptism is not regenerative, that Christ is not deity, that grace means no possible condemnation for one who believes, etc.

That's all well and good, but it seems to me that if we cooperate in our salvation then it can't properly be called salvation. Salvation involves being rescued, because we are incapable of delivering ourselves. But here we're getting into a whole other thicket with soteriology.

And yet it’s an important one, because it exposes another error. God wants your participation in your salvation because salvation is a journey towards a purpose, a perfection, a telos that we were created for, not just the entrance into heaven for some otherwise worthless sinner. And that means, to put it one way, to be perfected in love. And love, necessarily, is a choice-both a gift and a choice to accept, embrace, and express that gift. We require Him for that salvation; that’s an indisputable, non-negotiable truth that Pelagius didn’t get. But He wants our wills stirred and awakened and informed and involved, however weakly at first, and increasingly involved as our conviction, and therefore our justice: our faith, hope, and, most importantly, our love grows. Because love, again, is the very definition of righteousness or justice for man.

 

[Fervent]

Of course it’s serious, because sin is serious! But sin is also universal while absolute impeccability is not. We Should expect the best from the church while acknowledging that the treasure she held won’t necessarily always be appreciated by all those in charge of holding it at any one point in time. It takes time and maturity for the light to be comprehended and fully embraced and I believe that humanity is closer than we’ve ever been to that time even as the darkness is also growing all around. Either way, there will be those who are positively affected by it while others will abuse or in any case fail to align themselves with it.

Its more than simply serious, it requires a denial of the facts to maintain that a certain understanding of "the church" is "the church." Inventions of workarounds for the compromised witness of an institutional view of the church abound, because it is clear that not only are the individuals within the institutions corrupted but there is a larger spirit of worldliness that has led the institutional church into gross violations of human rights under the auspices of Christ.

And by the same token, that compromising doesn’t wash out the good that the church has done nor does clerical simony or purchased benefices, offices, et al mean that the “deposit of faith” has been compromised even when it’s definitely been ignored, overridden, abused, exploited.

It compromises attempts to maintain that the church is in institutions and offices, since the offices themselves have not been kept free of such corruption.

IDK. They certainly didn’t give Erasmus much of an ear, while he was one of the few voices of reason and moderation IMO.

In some ways, certainly not. But his ideas are clearly present within the works of the reformers.

The atonement was meant to satisfy God’s demands on man regardless of how it's characterized. So what did Jesus do and what, if anything, is to be man’s response? We love Him because He first loves us is one way to put it. That love is unconditional from God’s side (this brings up another error of some reformers, limited atonement, that God does not love all, that He does not want all to be saved) but man can still place his conditions on it. He can reject that love at any point, which means he’ll also fail to love as he should -and that failure is the foundation of the sin that separates us from God and neighbor-and will continue to. Grace/faith/justification are either carte blanc reprieves from the penalty of sin and are therefore vehicles straight to heaven or they still involve demands on man.

Purely vicarious atonement in the form of satisfaction theories remove men from the equation, which is what you seem to be erroneously blaming the reformers for. All they did was take what was already present in the form of satisfaction theory and original sin, and draw out their logical consequences. In original sin, men deserve punishment not for their personal sins but for Adam's. In vicarious satisfaction, they receive salvation not for any righteousness-or lack thereof-on their part, but for Christ's. They have no part in the drama of salvation, they are purely being acted upon by forces outside of themselves. These things may have been brought to the full force in the reformers, but it is simply the logical extension of things already present in the theology of the church.

I recently encountered the Protestant discussion emanating from the 19th century, I believe, on “ Law and Gospel”: I was a bit shocked to see it worded so bluntly but the basic position was that Scripture is speaking of the law whenever any trace of threat is implied while it’s teaching the gospel whenever no threat, only favor, is spoken of. That’s a radical perversion of the gospel message but an understandable take on Sola Fide. Does faith alone means that God doesn’t care what we do as long as we believe, as if faith covers all the requirements for righteousness and salvation from man's side of the coin? There is no confusion here with the Catholic church, nor the Eastern Orthodox if I may say. Righteous living is absolutely a requirement for entrance into heaven, even if the only access to that righteousness is grace, is God IOW. Can grace be bought? Heck no. Does more grace come to the cheerful giver? Heck yes. That’s why the sheep and not the goats in Matt 25 gained entrance into heaven because they gave- while motivated by love.

The law and gospel dialectic is certainly problematic, but again this isn't an issue of sola fide exactly but in legal metaphors being taken as fundamental. It is a perversion of sola fide, rather than an accurate representation of it.

Two quotes from Augustine:

“Does love bring about the keeping of the commandments, or does the keeping of the commandments bring about love? But who can doubt that love comes first? For the one who does not love has no reason for keeping the commandments". St Augustine

"The law was given that grace might be sought, grace was given so that the law might be fulfilled." St Augustine

The positions of author's are rarely capturable in single quotes, and the impact of their teaching is hardly seen from such quotes either. And these quotes are a bit far afield from the portion of his teaching that is of interest, which is what he taught on original sin.

You’re right, I should not presume. I had thought that I’d provided a link to that council earlier in this thread or at least had mentioned it but that was another thread recently-and many before that where I never heard a word of response about it, only derision in one cases for even mentioning it from someone who wouldn't read it.

Ah, mistakes will happen.

The Catholic position as far as I’ve studied and regardless of Augustine is that the imago dei was not destroyed but very much compromised, overridden dimmed but not extinguished even though fallen man could never lift himself up to approach and find God apart from grace, apart from God finding us first IOW.

It's gone in that direction since the reformation, but in the period between Augustine and the reformation it's anything but clear that the imago dei was not seen as being destroyed. It is largely a rediscovery of Cassian in the west that has led to a wider adoption of such a position, because previously Augustine was taken as the main or even sole authority on the matter. Though that is not to say the teaching wasn't present still, it's simply that the notion that the imago dei was destroyed in entirety had wide acceptance and presence within the church even before Luther wrote Bondage of the Will.

I think he would’ve preferred to defuse it, but only added more powder at the end of the day.

Agreed

I think that’s the net effect of SS though: Scripture trumps tradition while Scripture, itself, attests that not all teachings were written. That belief is presumptuous.

I agree the belief is presumptuous, but what is at issue is not unwritten teachings as if there are some secret teachings that only initiates know but opposition to things that are clearly theological developments that became entrenched in the broader tradition. Sola scriptura simply says we should judge what is taught based on what is known to be directly from the apostles, because writing is easier to preserve than oral traditions. Perversions of sola scriptura that are outright hostile to any and all tradition do not discredit the proper use and understanding of the principle, and an appeal to the existence of oral traditions doesn't justify giving priority to theological developments that have happened within the church in the guise of tradition.

And yet its pure speculation, often resulting in doctrine, that says that Christ isn’t really present in the Eucharist, that the Eucharist should at best be an occasional memorial service as a sidenote to the regular assembly, that baptism is not regenerative, that Christ is not deity, that grace means no possible condemnation for one who believes, etc.

Each of which can be opposed with a proper appeal to Scripture, which requires understanding it in the context of the wider tradition. Which doesn't go against sola scriptura, only perversions of it that have developed later. Most of what you're opposed to here was equally opposed by the reforrmers, with the exception of the radical reformers who embraced a distorted version of sola scriptura not in line with the principle elaborated by Jan Hus and taken up by the reformers.

And yet it’s an important one, because it exposes another error. God wants your participation in your salvation because salvation is a journey towards a purpose, a perfection, a telos that we were created for, not just the entrance into heaven for some otherwise worthless sinner. And that means, to put it one way, to be perfected in love. And love, necessarily, is a choice-both a gift and a choice to accept, embrace, and express that gift. We require Him for that salvation; that’s an indisputable, non-negotiable truth that Pelagius didn’t get. But He wants our wills stirred and awakened and informed and involved, however weakly at first, and increasingly involved as our conviction, and therefore our justice: our faith, hope, and, most importantly, our love grows. Because love, again, is the very definition of righteousness or justice for man.

I think we're speaking at cross purposes here, because I agree(and I don't think the reformers would disagree) that our salvation must be worked out in our lives through engaging with it. But to call that cooperation in our salvation is an objectional way of putting it in my mind because salvation is purely a work of God, who is the one and only savior. We are not co-saviors, but are indebted recipients of a salvation that invites us to participate in the divine life. Our participation in that life is as much of a gift as the initial saving action, and is not a meritorious action on our part.

 

[fhansen]

Its more than simply serious, it requires a denial of the facts to maintain that a certain understanding of "the church" is "the church."

Yes, that denial seems to be the case in modern day denominations.

Inventions of workarounds for the compromised witness of an institutional view of the church abound, because it is clear that not only are the individuals within the institutions corrupted but there is a larger spirit of worldliness that has led the institutional church into gross violations of human rights under the auspices of Christ.

I've known priests and bishops who've done seriously offensive things. But even a local priest who's a good and spiritual man managed to offend me last week as he's so distracted by his pet projects that he often fails to carry through on his fuller responsibilities. And this is inconsistent with the gospel message as well. I've found much worse such happenings in a Protestant church I attended. And I find that the more understanding I have of my own failings then the less I expect of-and the more I forgive- my fellowman, including my fellow Christian. Again, to say that just because a person, the laity or clergy including the pope, doesn't heed the gospel they've been taught, just because they sin IOW, doesn't mean that the church condones sinning, or that her teachings, which are the real treasure, allow for that sin. I'm more impressed by the relative exceeding holiness of the majority of the two hundred some-odd popes we've had down through time. But either way, MAN SINS.

In some ways, certainly not. But his ideas are clearly present within the works of the reformers.

One of his main ideas was not to divide the church.

Purely vicarious atonement in the form of satisfaction theories remove men from the equation, which is what you seem to be erroneously blaming the reformers for. All they did was take what was already present in the form of satisfaction theory and original sin, and draw out their logical consequences. In original sin, men deserve punishment not for their personal sins but for Adam's. In vicarious satisfaction, they receive salvation not for any righteousness-or lack thereof-on their part, but for Christ's. They have no part in the drama of salvation, they are purely being acted upon by forces outside of themselves. These things may have been brought to the full force in the reformers, but it is simply the logical extension of things already present in the theology of the church.

The Reformers took it too far. The gospel is not about being freed from the penalties of sin because of a vicarious righteousness that we latch onto by faith. That's a mockery of the gospel and of the holiness God requires of us.

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." Rom 5:17-19

The gift of righteousness is a real, personal, one, just as the "gift" of unrighteousness from Adam was a real one. IOW, through Adam, we all became truly sinners (unrighteous), through Christ, the new Adam, we all may become righteous again.

The law and gospel dialectic is certainly problematic, but again this isn't an issue of sola fide exactly but in legal metaphors being taken as fundamental. It is a perversion of sola fide, rather than an accurate representation of it.

The problem is there is serious disagreement on the accurate representation of it.

The positions of author's are rarely capturable in single quotes, and the impact of their teaching is hardly seen from such quotes either. And these quotes are a bit far afield from the portion of his teaching that is of interest, which is what he taught on original sin.

The main thing to me is what the church taught on OS, And those quotes either way are quite Catholic. But whether Scripture or Augustine or any other prolific writer, we can't quote everything written down all at once. Or we maybe we should do just that- and then tell the other party to get back to us afterwards . Yes, I can read obviously Catholic thought in Augustine, and also thought that crosses the line. But man, what a thinker!

Ah, mistakes will happen.

Ok. So does that mean that you may've read the docs in question?

It's gone in that direction since the reformation, but in the period between Augustine and the reformation it's anything but clear that the imago dei was not seen as being destroyed. It is largely a rediscovery of Cassian in the west that has led to a wider adoption of such a position, because previously Augustine was taken as the main or even sole authority on the matter. Though that is not to say the teaching wasn't present still, it's simply that the notion that the imago dei was destroyed in entirety had wide acceptance and presence within the church even before Luther wrote Bondage of the Will.

I'm sure there's truth here-and you can find this to some extent in the 2nd Council of Orange doc I referenced which convened some 75 or so years after Augustine and employed much of his work against Pelagianism. But in the early fathers as well as the teachings of the church in general the belief is virtually unanimous that man must choose good over evil with the help of grace, and that he can fail, that sin will separate him from God all over again. This is implicit in the first 4 sacraments as well. Turning to God in faith is also to turn away from sin and the offerings of this world. Augustine or any Catholic or EO would never disagree with that IMO.

I agree the belief is presumptuous, but what is at issue is not unwritten teachings as if there are some secret teachings that only initiates know but opposition to things that are clearly theological developments that became entrenched in the broader tradition.

But they're not only for the initiate;, there was basically only one church subsisting in both the east and west and everyone was taught by that church and that was the faith.

Sola scriptura simply says we should judge what is taught based on what is known to be directly from the apostles, because writing is easier to preserve than oral traditions.

But it doesn't work. we often just have one person's after-the-fact opinion/interpretation pitted against another person's.

Each of which can be opposed with a proper appeal to Scripture, which requires understanding it in the context of the wider tradition. Which doesn't go against sola scriptura, only perversions of it that have developed later. Most of what you're opposed to here was equally opposed by the reforrmers, with the exception of the radical reformers who embraced a distorted version of sola scriptura not in line with the principle elaborated by Jan Hus and taken up by the reformers.

It really just depends on the reformer. One could say that the radical Reformers just took Sola Scriptura to its more logical conclusion.

We are not co-saviors, but are indebted recipients of a salvation that invites us to participate in the divine life. Our participation in that life is as much of a gift as the initial saving action, and is not a meritorious action on our part.

Yes, and yet it's a gift that we must act upon, and can get lazy about so that even though any merit that we gain that would be efficacious towards salvation is God's work, we can nonetheless fail to gain that merit. He won't force any of this upon us. God draws us towards the wisdom and beauty of His will, but some won't come, won't cooperate, or will turn away later on.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, that denial seems to be the case in modern day denominations.

I've known priests and bishops who've done seriously offensive things. But even a local priest who's a good and spiritual man managed to offend me last week as he's so distracted by his pet projects that he often fails to carry through on his fuller responsibilities. And this is inconsistent with the gospel message as well. I've found much worse such happenings in a Protestant church I attended. And I find that the more understanding I have of my own failings then the less I expect of-and the more I forgive- my fellowman, including my fellow Christian. Again, to say that just because a person, the laity or clergy including the pope, doesn't heed the gospel they've been taught, just because they sin IOW, doesn't mean that the church condones sinning, or that her teachings, which are the real treasure, allow for that sin. I'm more impressed by the relative exceeding holiness of the majority of the two hundred some-odd popes we've had down through time. But either way, MAN SINS.

You seem to be minimizing the issue, but what's more is you don't seem to understand what my objection is because the sins of officers are minimally related to my criticism. The center of my criticism is not that those who have occupied various offices have been sinful, wayward people, but that the institution of the church has functioned far more as a political entity than as one with the hallmarks of the kingdom of God. As an institution, it has all of the same failings and recommendations as any other worldly organization. There's infighting, politicking, corruption, nepotism, cronyism, etc. It's no better or worse than any other human kingdom.

One of his main ideas was not to divide the church.

Sure, but simply because they rejected major premises doesn't mean they weren't heavily influenced by his thought.

The Reformers took it too far. The gospel is not about being freed from the penalties of sin because of a vicarious righteousness that we latch onto by faith. That's a mockery of the gospel and of the holiness God requires of us.

It's simply the logical endpoint of a vicarious satisfaction theology coupled with vicarious guilt.

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." Rom 5:17-19

The gift of righteousness is a real, personal, one, just as the "gift" of unrighteousness from Adam was a real one. IOW, through Adam, we all became truly sinners (unrighteous), through Christ, the new Adam, we all may become righteous again.

I'm not sure what you're trying to address here.

The problem is there is serious disagreement on the accurate representation of it.

There are serious disagreements on a lot of theological issues, doesn't mean we should discard doctrine just because it can be confused. It just means we should aim to clarify it. How Catholics understand sola fide, is not how a significant number of protestants do. And what Trent anathematized is not what Luther et all elaborated.

The main thing to me is what the church taught on OS, And those quotes either way are quite Catholic. But whether Scripture or Augustine or any other prolific writer, we can't quote everything written down all at once. Or we maybe we should do just that- and then tell the other party to get back to us afterwards . Yes, I can read obviously Catholic thought in Augustine, and also thought that crosses the line. But man, what a thinker!

'What the church taught" is quite a nebulous concept when you separate it from what the doctors of the church taught. Which is not a single, simple, explanation and has varied over time on OS.

Ok. So does that mean that you may've read the docs in question?

I've read them in the past, but I could probably use a refresher since that was a few years ago in my church history classes. What portion do you think is relevant to our discussion, and how do you understand it?

I'm sure there's truth here-and you can find this to some extent in the 2nd Council of Orange doc I referenced which convened some 75 or so years after Augustine and employed much of his work against Pelagianism. But in the early fathers as well as the teachings of the church in general the belief is virtually unanimous that man must choose good over evil with the help of grace, and that he can fail, that sin will separate him from God all over again. This is implicit in the first 4 sacraments as well. Turning to God in faith is also to turn away from sin and the offerings of this world. Augustine or any Catholic or EO would never disagree with that IMO.

Yes, but such teachings were a matter of being logically inconsistent and not really evaluating the implications of various underlying doctrine. In part, it is because the church has always recognized a degree of mystery in such things and didn't attempt to formulate purely rational systematic doctrine in the way that the reformers sought to build such systematic theologies.

But they're not only for the initiate;, there was basically only one church subsisting in both the east and west and everyone was taught by that church and that was the faith.

The notion that there was "one church" is questionable, because there certainly wasn't a single hierarchical institution such as the Roman Catholic church has become but was instead a multiplicity of autocephalous churches such as is seen in orthodoxy.

But it doesn't work. we often just have one person's after-the-fact opinion/interpretation pitted against another person's.

I'm not sure what you mean by "work," because the protestant model was incredibly effective in creating a vibrant Christian culture in the United States that resisted modern decay that was seen in the state churches. And that's a result of sola scriptura. So whether it "works" or not depends on what criteria we're looking for as far as effectiveness.

It really just depends on the reformer. One could say that the radical Reformers just took Sola Scriptura to its more logical conclusion.

Sure, though it's really not a logical conclusion of sola scriptura it's a bastardization of it. Probably because of the slogan, rather than taking the time to understand what was meant by the slogan.

Yes, and yet it's a gift that we must act upon, and can get lazy about so that even though any merit that we gain that would be efficacious towards salvation is God's work, we can nonetheless fail to gain that merit. He won't force any of this upon us. God draws us towards the wisdom and beauty of His will, but some won't come, won't cooperate, or will turn away later on.

Sure, but such merit isn't a matter of salvation if we go by what Paul wrote. The founation survives, even if the works are burned up.