It’s October 2017. This is the month that many Protestants will celebrate the so called “reformation” since it’s 500 years from the posting of Martin Luther’s complaints on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. I’ve been thinking of Protestants a lot this month. If Luther had not done what he did, the people who today call themselves Protestant would be attending the Roman Mass and praying the Rosary.
I will speak more about Luther later this month but I want to talk about sharing the faith. When someone has a conviction regarding the truth of the Catholic faith, they have a new zeal for their faith and a hatred for heresy. However, we often forget that we have to be prudent when we spread the faith. In Ecclesiastes we read about a time for war and a time for peace.
On the weekend, I had a young lady over for coffee at my house. She’s a faithful Protestant and churchgoer. She’s attended 3 or 4 different churches in her life. She’s floating around churches trying to find a home. We discussed quite a bit of things and found that we agree on quite a lot. We agree on cultural issues and some faith issues.
At one point during our discussions, she mentioned that she has never read a book about Catholicism written by a Catholic. I wanted to cure that problem. Before she went, I invited her into my study and gave her two books. The first one was St. Pius X: The farm boy who became Pope while the second book was the Catechism of St. Pius X.
Protestants don’t have a Pope or Saints. I wanted to get her acquainted with both at once. Also, I wanted to show her that there have been good Popes in recent history, which goes to show that one day we will have good Popes again.
Pope Pius X never compromised. My Protestant friend will read about this when she reads his biography and Catechism. This is very important seeing as how many in the Church today say that theology and religious differences don’t matter. The fact that many Catholics have chosen to celebrate the so called “reformation” this month only proves my point.
Overall, our conversation was very pleasant. There was no vicious debate. I can tell that she appreciated that since she knows that I’m deeply committed to Catholicism.
We can be friends with people of other faiths, speak with charity, and at the same time not compromise. When Pope Pius X was Bishop of Mantua, he got together with the local rabbi to help feed the poor. He was friends with the rabbi but he never compromised his faith.
I know a lot of people would prefer to just yell heretic but I think that we ultimately have to go with what works. Will this girl convert? I don’t know, but I personally don’t think that I could have done a better job witnessing to her when she was here.
As Catholics in October 2017, we should not be thinking about Luther. We should be thinking about those who have been affected by him. Make it your goal to share the faith with a Protestant once this month. Perhaps give them some good Catholic literature. Pope Pius X maybe?
If Luther had not re-covered justification by faith alone and Sola Scriptura (from 1517-1521, trial at Worms, etc.) because of Erasmus’ fresh Greek NT text, and Guttenberg’s printing press; someone else would have re-discovered the truth from the Greek NT and realized that those doctrines that the Roman Catholic Church has added to the gospel and Scripture, were wrong. Zwingli even claimed he saw it in the NT Greek text separately from Luther’s influence. Your RC doctrines that we still rightly protest are man-made traditions – Adding traditions to the Scriptures, exalting Mary too much; adding works & merit to justification by faith alone, purgatory, statues & icons in a worship context and praying to them, praying to the dead, getting merit from praying to pictures and statues and getting merit from pilgrimages, indulgences, transubstantiation, Apocryphal books, priests, office of Pope (no such things in the NT).
I agree with you on moral issues, Allan, and your good Biblical arguments against Islam, and against modern immorality (abortion, homosexuality, etc.), but you are wrong on this issue.
Sincerely, Ken Temple
Hi Ken,
There is a lot that you’ve raised that we could debate. This is especially true with the last half of your first paragraph. However, one thing that you seem to emphasize is the Greek NT in the establishing of Sola Fide. It is true that many(by no means all) of the Latin Fathers and Doctors of the Church from St. Augustine to the reformation didn’t have an advanced knowledge of the Greek language.
However, in the Eastern Church, Greek was the main language. How come they never had the teaching of Sola Fide if the Greek NT was important to the discovery of this doctrine? If Zwingli and Luther arrived at it independently, then the Greek Church should have been full of this doctrine. Medieval Greek scholars like Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus rejected Papal claims and accused the West of heresy, yet they never endorsed this doctrine.
The Greek speaking East rejecting this doctrine doesn’t make it false, however, I’m simply trying to point out that the Greek NT made little or no difference in the promotion or discovery of this doctrine. Erasmus of Rotterdam who compiled the Greek Text that Luther used never believed in this doctrine and he was not afraid to criticize many doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church.
Chrysostom seemed to understand:
Chrysostom (349-407 AD): “The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of faith alone: before circumcision, the text says, “Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.” Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 27.7 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 167.
Chrysostom (349-407 AD): “For if even before this, the circumcision was made uncircumcision, much rather was it now, since it is cast out from both periods. But after saying that “it was excluded,” he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? “By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. ”
NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 7, vs. 27.
Chrysostom (349-407 AD): “For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light.” NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 8, Rom. 4:1, 2.
Chrysostom (349-407): “And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows.” NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Commentary on Galatians, 3:8.
Chrysostom (349-407): “For they said that the one who does not keep the law is cursed, while he shows that the one who strives to keep it is cursed and the one who does not strive to keep it is blessed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed.” Homily on Galatians 3.9-10. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 40. 3:8.
Chrysostom (349-407): “God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent. Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 134.
Other Greek / eastern fathers are in the list here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/the-early-church-and-justification-compiled-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/
How do you explain the fact that the Greek fathers did not like Augustine’s theology of original sin/guilt, which the West (Roman and Protestants) understand?
They accept sin is passed down in corruption/nature, but not guilt.
Should have been:
How do you explain the fact that the Greek Orthodox Church did not like Augustine’s theology of original sin/guilt, which the West (Roman and Protestants) understand?
They accept sin is passed down in corruption/nature, but not guilt. It seems to me Augustine got Romans 5:12 right, with Psalm 51:4-5 and other passages.
First of all regarding Chrysostom, yes he uses the term “faith alone” but if you read his writings in total you’ll see that he’s very sacramental and believed heavily in penances, the Eucharistic sacrifice, and baptismal regeneration. I know that you’ll probably say he contradicted himself but this can even be said about Luther(which you might admit for all I know). Even taking that into account, Sola Fide has not been a teaching throughout the Greek Church. I think you’ll admit, even though a few quotes can be found, it’s not the norm in the Greek Church, even though all early Protestants believed it – Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Tyndale, Bucer, etc.
Regarding Original Sin, it seems to depend which Greeks you talk to. The views in the Greek Church are a dime a dozen. Quite often though they mistake the Catholic view for the Calvinist view and lump it all under the “Western View”. For example, Fr. Evan Armatas on Ancient Faith Radio once described the Greek view of Original Sin and it sounded like the Catholic view, but he thought the Calvinist view is actually what the Catholics believed. I actually find this a lot in the Greek Church. They’ll discuss the “Western” and “Eastern” views which is so lazy since there are many views in East and West.
In talking with Greeks, their views seem to be a plethora, and since they don’t have the Papacy anymore, they haven’t been able to define any doctrines and therefore can’t settle on one particular view or teaching regarding Original Sin.
Also, I never claimed the Greek NT was vital to finding the doctrine of Original Sin, like you did concerning Sola Fide. It’s dependent on a good reading of Scripture. St. Augustine used the Vulgate and the pre-Vulgate Latin translation. His knowledge of Greek was limited but he still comprehended this doctrine. If this doctrine can be found without the Greek NT, why not Sola Fide?
Regarding Latin and Augustine’s exposition of original sin:
His knowledge of Greek was limited but he still comprehended this doctrine. If this doctrine can be found without the Greek NT, why not Sola Fide?
Because the Latin of the issues of “counted” / “considered” / reckoned (iustificare = “to make righteous” rather than “count righteous”, etc.) of “Sola Fide” and repentance (do penance, rather than “repent”, etc.) were incorrect in Latin (did not accurately reflect either the Hebrew background of Genesis 15:6, nor the Greek NT on this), thus eclipsing and hiding the truth of the doctrine, but the Latin did not distort it on the issues of original sin.
From James Swan’s excellent article:
Historically, one can make a case that Augustine didn’t know Greek and the entire direction of the Church was redirected away from what the Bible means by justification. Commenting on a point made by Alister McGrath, R.C. Sproul notes, “McGrath sees Augustine’s treatment of justification as pivotal to the subsequent development of the doctrine of justification in the Roman Catholic Church…” Sproul then quotes Mcgrath:
Augustine understands the verb iustificare to mean ‘to make righteous,’ an understanding of the term which he appears to have held throughout his working life. In arriving at this understanding, he appears to have interpreted -ficare as the unstressed form of facere, by analogy with vivificare and mortificare. Although this is a permissible interpretation of the Latin word, it is unacceptable as an interpretation of the Hebrew concept which underlies it. [R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone : The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, (Grand Rapids: Baker books, 1999), 99].
In other words, McGrath is saying that Augustine misunderstood the term justification. He used it in its Latin sense, not in a Hebrew sense. Since he didn’t know Greek, how could Augustine arrive at an accurate interpretation? McGrath goes onto say:
The term iustificare is, or course, post-classical, having been introduced through the Latin translation of the bible, and thus restricted to Christian writers of the Latin west. Augustine was thus unable to turn to classical authors in an effort to clarrify its meaning, and was thus obliged to interpret the term himself. His establishment of a relationship between iustificare and iustitia is of enormous significance, as will become clear[Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 31].
There is a lot more there:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/08/alister-mcgrath-on-augustine-and.html
Hi Ken,
I think you misrepresented what I asked. It was my fault because I didn’t make it clear. I should have put it in a new paragraph.
“If this doctrine can be found without the Greek NT, why not Sola Fide?”
When I said this, I wasn’t referring to St. Augustine, even though it can be interpreted this way due to my lack of clarity. Again, I should have separated this better.
But when I said this, I wasn’t referring to St. Augustine, but to anyone who picks up a Latin Bible and reads. It’s a generic statement about anyone. We can explain away St. Augustine as to what his limited knowledge was regarding certain terms but what about every Priest who read it from St. Augustine to the reformation? Could it not be determined?
First of all regarding Chrysostom, yes he uses the term “faith alone” but if you read his writings in total you’ll see that he’s very sacramental and believed heavily in penances, the Eucharistic sacrifice, and baptismal regeneration. I know that you’ll probably say he contradicted himself . . .
yes, he did contradict himself and he was inconsistent; as penances are not the same thing as repentance and the Eucharistic sacrifice is wrong if some one means some kind of physical / material presence of Christ’s body. It was obvious since Jesus was in His incarnational body at the last supper when He said, “this is My blood”, and “this is My body” – He obviously meant, “this represents My body and blood”, etc. and baptismal regeneration is also unBiblical and wrong. That is why we need Sola Scriptura to be like an umpire, since only the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant. Chrysostom was not infallible, and neither is any of the “Popes” or bishops of Rome for the past 2000 years. There was not even a mono-episcopate in Rome in first and second centuries. There was no such thing as a “Pope” meaning “bishop over all other bishops” until Leo (440 AD) and Gregory 1 (604 AD) made those claims or close to it what later became the Papacy. Cyprian and 86 other bishops vs. Stephen bishop of Rome in 258 AD prove beyond all doubt that the Papacy is wrong and unhistorical in early centuries.
Hi Ken,
Okay, well it’s just hard to believe that he believed in what Luther believed in(I assume you’re claiming that) when he believed in so many things contradictory to it. You will at least admit that if one says “faith alone” it doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing. You’ll admit that James 2:24 condemns a form of “faith alone” but not the Lutheran doctrine of how we’re justified. If we’re going to exegete what Chrysostom means by faith alone, maybe it’s not what the Protestants meant when they used the term and something more consistent with a Sacramental theology.
The Papacy is another discussion and I don’t know why you suddenly brought it up. I do want to do a post on the argument that there is no mono-episcopate in Rome in the first and second century. I have about 3 or 4 good arguments from the Ignatian epistles that there is. Stay tuned.
The Papacy is another discussion and I don’t know why you suddenly brought it up.
umm . . . who gives you a little help and the title of your post?
Every issue between us also goes to that issue and Sola Scriptura. There is no such thing as a office of Pope in the Bible, nor in the early centuries of Christianity. The office of Pope and Papal claims are an abomination and blight on Christian history.
When I said this, I wasn’t referring to St. Augustine, even though it can be interpreted this way due to my lack of clarity. Again, I should have separated this better.
But when I said this, I wasn’t referring to St. Augustine, but to anyone who picks up a Latin Bible and reads. It’s a generic statement about anyone. We can explain away St. Augustine as to what his limited knowledge was regarding certain terms but what about every Priest who read it from St. Augustine to the reformation? Could it not be determined?
That part is still not clear. I don’t understand what you are saying. Can you flesh it out better? It is still very unclear as to what you are saying. The Latin translations of justification (make – ficare, rather than “count”) and metanoia (repent) were wrong, so your point, as far as I am can see, is still wrong.
The point is not that Chysostom and other early church fathers got all of “faith alone” with the full developed 16th century Protestant theology of the imputed righteousness of Christ to believers account, rather the point is that “faith alone” (apart from pre-conditions of works and apart from the merit of works) as the way one is justified was recognized in the early church, even if other doctrines logically contradict that (sacramentalism, baptismal regeneration, priests).
Tradition beyond the 27 books of the NT (early church interpretations, statements, etc.) is not infallible; only Scripture is infallible.
James 2:24 in context of 2:14-26 means the kind of faith that stays alone (does not result in a changed life of good works and love, etc.) is not real faith; it is dead. It is just intellectual assent, like the demons in James 2:19 – it is not heartfelt trust. James does not contradict Paul in Galatians and Romans. James 2:14-26 means “a man is proven/confirmed/vindicated/demonstrated justified by good works”. Good works are the necessary result of true faith. “We are justified by faith alone, but true faith does not stay alone.”
we do have saints; all believers in Christ are saints.
1 Cor. 1:2
Romans 1:6-7
Ephesians 1:1
Philippians 1:1
Colossians 1:1-2
Hebrews 10:10-14
1 Corinthians 1:30
1 Corinthians 6:11
Ken,
This is called the scattergun approach. We both know that James White criticizes this method and rightly so. I respect your intellect and love for Scripture but I won’t be engaging you on all these points.
I thought that the importance of the Greek NT in the discovery of the doctrine of Sola Fide would be an interesting debate but then you just shifted ground and scatter gunned. If you ever want to get a good discussion out of me, stick to one topic.
Btw, my next post is on Sola Scriptura. Writing it now.
Those verses I provided are in response to your statement here that is in your article above, I was focusing on the “saints” part. All those verses are one subject, showing that all believers are already saints, and the RC category of “saints” is wrong. So, it was not a scattergun approach.
Protestants don’t have a Pope or Saints.
Your comment about “pick up a Latin Bible” in general, etc. that it was not about Augustine, still does not make any sense.
I don’t understand what you are saying. Can you flesh it out better? It is still very unclear as to what you are saying. The Latin translations of justification (iustificare – ficare = “make” – ficare, rather than “count”) and “do penance” rather than “repent” – metanoia (repent) were wrong translations, so your point, as far as I am can see, is still wrong.
Hi Allan,
Do you have more of a response to the above ?
Which topic? We started out with a good discussion about the Greek NT and its role in the discovery and promotion of Sola Fide then you threw out a bunch of other topics. Which topic?
If you want to stick to one at a time, I’m fine, if you want to scattergun I’ll stop replying like I did.
Your comments about the Latin Bible and that it was not about Augustine, etc.
That still did not make any sense, since the Greek words , metanoia, for repentance was mistranslated into Latin, and also dikaosune and dikaow were mis-translated by the Latin iustificare – the ficare part = make, do, and that is wrong; and many scholars have pointed this out, including Allistair McGrath.
The issue of translation is a big issue. I only have a basic knowledge of either language.
Getting back to the main point, do you believe that it’s impossible to get Sola Fide with the Latin Bible alone?
The Latin mistranslations obscured the truth of the gospel and the many other man-made traditions of the Roman Catholic Church eclipsed and hid the truth of the gospel.
Please read this article:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/08/historical-developments-that-led-to.html
You seem to really like quoting that website. My original statement remains. The Greek Church never preached the true Gospel according to Protestantism. There was no Latin Bible cluttering their Church. Where was Sola Fide, the five points of Calvinism and all the rest?
So then you admit that no one can get the true Gospel from the Latin Bible? I would like an unambiguous admission to this.
I wrote that article at that web-site of “Beggar’s All” several years ago.
The main guy that owns the blog is James Swan, but I also write there.
Please read.
If the Greek for repentance was mistranslated, and “righteousness” and “justify” was mistranslated by the latin (the latin means “make righteous” rather than “declare/count/reckon righteous”) then the Latin obscured the Biblical doctrine of justification.
Ken Temple
Yes the Latin obscured the truth of the Greek.
It seems you are the one who avoids addressing the issue.
Hey Ken,
I didn’t know that you wrote on that website. I thought it was only Swan. Either way, you gave me a reading assignment, I’ll return the favour. Look at Appendix II in Not by Faith Alone by Robert Sungenis and you’ll see his response to the the whole make righteous vs declared righteous, iustificare, etc. I assume that you have this book since you deal with Catholic vs Protestant apologetics.
Years ago, I watched / listened to Sungenis’ debates with Dr. White several times, especially the one on Justification. I don’t have that book. I have read others responding to it though. I may order it, so I can read the appendix # 2. What is that appendix about? One reviewer says the book has 21 Appendices. Wow.
Hi Ken,
Yeah, it’s a 775 page book. It’s very thorough. Tell you what, I know what your email is since you have to write it to post. I’ll take pictures with my cell phone then email it to you. It’s only 3 or 4 pages so I’m not afraid of any copyright problems. However, I’m out of town this weekend so you’ll have to wait a couple of days.
ok, sounds good.
But in order for me to read your request, I will have to spend money; but mine is free and it an outline article, easy to read; at Beggar’s All.
Also, if you go to the side bar and click on “Articles by Ken T.” you can see the ones that I have written over the years.