So, give me a contemporaneous documented example.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"The doctrine by which the church stands or falls."
- Thread starter ReformedBaptist
- Start date
- Status
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Matt Black said:
1. Who are you writing to?
2. Huh??? Can you re-word in stupid terms. Contemporanous ? huh???
1. You.
2. You claim that people were saved through the doctrine of justification by faith alone prior to 1517. I'm therefore asking you for an example of this, written down in or near to 800AD.
2. You claim that people were saved through the doctrine of justification by faith alone prior to 1517. I'm therefore asking you for an example of this, written down in or near to 800AD.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Matt Black said:
I am not sure what you have chosen 800AD, seems odd...but two men come to mind prior to 1517AD that taught what we could call today Justification by Faith Alone:
Anslem of Canterbury (held office 1093-1109)
The great earlier Scholastic theologian, Anselm, was also solafideian. He wrote his belief in a tract for the consolation of the dying, quoted by A. H. Strong:
“Question. Dost thou believe that the Lord Jesus died for thee? Answer. I believe it.
Qu. Dost thou thank him for his passion and death? Ans. I do thank him. Qu. Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved except by his death? Ans. I believe it.” And then Anselm addresses the dying man: “Come then, while life remaineth in thee; in his death alone place thy whole trust; in naught else place any trust; to his death commit thyself wholly; with this alone cover thyself wholly; and if the Lord thy God will to judge thee, say, ‘Lord, between thy judgment and me I present the death of our Lord Jesus Christ; no otherwise can I contend with thee.’ And if he shall say that thou art a sinner, say thou: ‘Lord, I interpose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my sins and thee.’ If he say that thou hast deserved condemnation, say: ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my evil deserts and thee, and his merits I offer for those which I ought to have and have not.’ If he say that he is wroth with thee, say: ‘Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between thy wrath and me.’ And when thou hast completed this, say again: ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between thee and me.’” See Anselm, Opera (Migne), 1:686, 687. The above quotation gives us reason to believe that the New Testament doctrine of justification by faith was implicitly, if not explicitly, held by many pious souls through all the ages of papal darkness.
Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Justification/GerstnerJohnJustificationHistory.htm
That's more like PSA than sola fide. And I wonder what ++Anselm's reaction would be to someone who "prayed the sinner's prayer" and then went round committing acts of fornication.
Who was the other person to whom you referred?
Who was the other person to whom you referred?
Last edited by a moderator:
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Matt Black said:
I was going to include Thomas Aquinas, the poster child of Rome, but I have not had adequte time to verify such a testimony of him. Better would be the confession of faith of the Waldensian Creed of 1120. If I had my history book written by Peter Felix with me I could site some sources that date their movement to your preferred time frame, around 800AD or even later.
If faith doesn't come by hearing then throw out the Bible and call God a liar who said it in the first place, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul.Matt Black said:
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Matt Black said:
The first ECF to preach this in the NT was Paul.
Oh - and we can still read what he wrote.
But aside from that - what is your actual Bible objection? Have you made an actual case?
Perhaps a quote from one of my favorite ECFs will help to begin your argument --
Rom 3
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Rom 5
1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God[/b] through our Lord Jesus Christ,
2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.
First of all even you would have to admit that as Paul read scripture and preached - his listeners HEARD him. So we START with the Christian church HEARING what Paul said.
Further -we can not argue that READING the Bible is fine but does no good until you ALSO HEAR someone reading it out loud.
So that means those in 2007 can READ the text of Romans 3 and Romans 5 above and benefit JUST as did the first century ROMAN church that READ that letter .. and this would be true EVEN of Christians in 800 provided that they had a Bible.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Matt Black said:
God was able to SAVE even when RC church leaders were teaching error.
The scripture SHOWS us that God's Gospel works by offering "justification by faith and THAT apart from the works of the law" to all lost sinners.
you keep arguing in effect "God can't continue to save the way the Bible says He does it unless the RC leadership of the 9th century let's him"
I'm happy with you citing the Waldensians as proto-evangelicals, although as you say they are 12th century, and I do not regard attempts to link them to earlier 'fringe movements' such as the Bogomils and Paulicians to be historically valid. I'm intrigued by your use of Aquinas though; whilst I have a lot of time for old Tom, he is arguably 'to blame' for a lot of the subsequent late medieval scholasticism in the Western Church which led to the sort of abuses like indulgences against which Luther so rightly railed.ReformedBaptist said:
Re ++Anselm, do you not find it strange that the Papacy which canonised him in the late 15th century was pretty much the same Papacy against which Luther rebelled?
DHK said:
You're missing the point: I'm saying that faith does come by hearing; however, no-one was preaching sola fide in 800. So, if that is the doctrine by which men are saved, how were they in 800?
BobRyan said:
Ah, but I have had it alleged here so many times that the people of the Dark Ages were deprived of access to Bibles by the nasty cruel Catholics, so my question stands: how was Joe Pew-Fodder saved in 800?
Furthermore, you are selective (as we all are if we're honest!) in your quoting of the NT: what about Jesus' words in Matt 25:31-46 (no mention of faith, just works there) or James 2:14-26?
BobRyan said:
Still no examples, then. <Whistles...>
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
I've resisted chiming in on this post until now because I've argued about this topic many times before. Matt, Agnus_Dei, and HP have made good points about the weakness of sola Scriptura and how historically the doctine of "justification by faith alone" (sola fide) was basically unheard of in the church for about the first millenium and a half of her existence. Of course, the retort has been that the "original ECFs, the apostles" taught sola fide in the Scriptures. However, when one actually looks at the Scriptures to evaluate this doctrine by which the whole church allegedly "stands or falls", one finds this doctrine nowhere to be found. In fact, the only place where "justification" and "faith alone" are found together in the entirety of Scriptures is, of course, in the epistle of James, where the Lord's brother clearly stated:
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." (James 2:24).
So much for sola fide.
And what about Paul--does he say in his epistle to the Galatians:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith alone"?
Not at all. On the contrary, the apostle states:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6)
Paul doesn't use "faith alone" even in the already cited passage Romans 3:28:
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law (or 'Torah')." (Romans 3:28)
Paul states that we are indeed justified by faith apart from the works of the Torah (ie apart from the markers and practices of the Old Covenant), but he doesn't say we are justified by faith alone.
Of course, if was Martin Luther who added the word "alone" in that verse to support his new doctrine. He was also the one who declared James' Epistle to be "an epistle of straw" because it disagreed with him and this new doctrine.
So it looks like the writers of Scriptures--the original Church Fathers--were in agreement with all the other church fathers that we are not justified by faith alone. On the contrary the famous advocate of sola fide, Martin Luther, attempted to add a word ("alone") to Scripture (where it wasn't found in the text) and to subtract an entire epistle (James) in order to get Scriptures to say what he wanted it to say. However, the Apostle Peter had a sober statement regarding folks who handled Scripture in such a manner: "...which those untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction as they do also the rest of Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:16).
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." (James 2:24).
So much for sola fide.
And what about Paul--does he say in his epistle to the Galatians:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith alone"?
Not at all. On the contrary, the apostle states:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6)
Paul doesn't use "faith alone" even in the already cited passage Romans 3:28:
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law (or 'Torah')." (Romans 3:28)
Paul states that we are indeed justified by faith apart from the works of the Torah (ie apart from the markers and practices of the Old Covenant), but he doesn't say we are justified by faith alone.
Of course, if was Martin Luther who added the word "alone" in that verse to support his new doctrine. He was also the one who declared James' Epistle to be "an epistle of straw" because it disagreed with him and this new doctrine.
So it looks like the writers of Scriptures--the original Church Fathers--were in agreement with all the other church fathers that we are not justified by faith alone. On the contrary the famous advocate of sola fide, Martin Luther, attempted to add a word ("alone") to Scripture (where it wasn't found in the text) and to subtract an entire epistle (James) in order to get Scriptures to say what he wanted it to say. However, the Apostle Peter had a sober statement regarding folks who handled Scripture in such a manner: "...which those untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction as they do also the rest of Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:16).
That's why Cranmer's Homily to which I linked above refers to 'dead' and 'lively' faith.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Indeed. Faith without works is dead and therefore can't save (or justify) anybody. :thumbs:Matt Black said:
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
BTW, Matt. Great link---there's some really good stuff in those sermons! :applause:
Here's your quote:Matt Black said:
"no-one was preaching sola-fide in 800."
That is what is called a universal negative--a logical fallacy--impossible to prove.
Your argument defeats itself for you have no way to demonstrate the veracity of it. Can you go back in time in 800 and research every preacher that ever preached in every part of the world, and observe throughout every part of their lives if they every preached along the lines of sola fide?
- Status