Were the Fathers Protestant?

Many Protestants claim that the Early Church Fathers were protestant in their theologies, or at least not Catholic in them. I here intend to not only show that the Fathers were not Protestant as regards their theology, but also to show that they were very Catholic.

Fairly Recently, a Protestant Apologist made the claim that St. Clement of Rome did not believe the Catholic dogma of Purgatory nor the Catholic beliefs concerning Justification. However, the very text that he used to substantiate this oddly enough teaches the Catholic doctrine concerning justification. St. Clement says: “Wherefore, then, my brethren, let us struggle with all earnestness, knowing that the contest is [in our case] close at hand, and that many undertake long voyages to strive for a corruptible reward; yet all are not crowned, but those only that have laboured hard and striven gloriously. Let us therefore so strive, that we may all be crowned. Let us run the straight course, even the race that is incorruptible; and let us in great numbers set out for it, and strive that we may be crowned. “[1] St. Clement is basically talking just like St. Paul; Protestants believe that we don’t have to do anything but believe, we don’t have to strive because we are already saved, correct? Well, if the early Fathers were closer to Protestant theology, at least in Clement’s case, than Catholic, then why would Clement be talking about striving after our salvation? “Wherefore, my brethren, let us do the will of the Father who called us, that we may live; and let us earnestly follow after virtue, but forsake every wicked tendency which would lead us into transgression; and flee from ungodliness, lest evils overtake us. For if we are diligent in doing good, peace will follow us.”[2] This shows that Clement was Catholic in this regard, but how close was he to Protestant theology? Well, let’s see. According to Luther, we don’t have to do anything but have faith, and that good works are worse than sin: “It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.”[3] St. Clement, however, says that ungodliness could actually cause one to fall from grace, but Martin Luther says: “…A person that is baptized cannot, though he would, lose his salvation by any sins however grievous, unless he refuses to believe. For no sins can damn him but unbelief alone.”[4] St. Clement says to be virtuous, Martin Luther says: “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”[5] Apparently we have two opposites here, Luther believes that no sin can cause us to fall from our constant state of justification, while Clement says that justification must be strived after and is not certain for any man, and that sin can cause us to fall from grace, what striking opposites. “Wherefore, brethren, by doing the will of the Father, and keeping the flesh holy, and observing the commandments of the Lord, we shall obtain eternal life.” [6] But according to Luther we already have eternal life if we believe, and that following the commandments is inherently pointless, and borders on error: “Thou shalt not covet,’ is a commandment which proves us all to be sinners; since it is not in man’s power not to covet, and the same is the drift of all the commandments, for they are all equally impossible to us.” [7] “If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” [8]. St. Clement Says: “For He is faithful who has promised that He will bestow on every one a reward according to his works. If, therefore, we shall do righteousness in the sight of God, we shall enter into His kingdom, and shall receive the promises, which “ear has not heard, nor eye seen, neither have entered into the heart of man.” St. Clement seems to point to good and holy works as having some importance and that we can thereby be rewarded with the Kingdom of God, not so according to Martin Luther. St. Clement says “..if we are not found to have holy and righteous works… For the Lord has said, “Those are my brethren who do the will of my Father.”‘ But what now of Justification by faith alone? St. Clement goes on: “Let us, therefore, work righteousness, that we may be saved to the end. Blessed are they who obey these commandments, even if for a brief space they suffer in this world, and they will gather the imperishable fruit of the resurrection.” Again he speaks of works of righteousness for salvation, this is not sola fide, this is not Protestant teaching, but Catholic. Thus, far from being a Protestant in his theology, St. Clement preaches the Catholic doctrine concerning justification and righteous works.

St. Cyprian of Carthage says:

“But by whom is God sanctified, since He Himself sanctifies? Well, because He says, “Be holy, even as I am holy,”(3 Leviticus 20:7) we ask and entreat, that we who were sanctified in baptism may continue in that which we have begun to be. And this we daily pray for; for we have need of daily sanctification, that we who daily fall away may wash out our sins by continual sanctification. And what the sanctification is which is conferred upon us by the condescension of God… We pray that this sanctification may abide in us and because our Lord and Judge warns the man that was healed and quickened by Him, to sin no more lest a worse thing happen unto him, we make this supplication in our constant prayers, we ask this day and night, that the sanctification and quickening which is received from the grace of God may be preserved by His protection.”[9]

Apparently, St. Cyprian he did not believe that once one is “saved” that one remains in that state of being “saved”, and thus cannot fall away, he says the opposite, justification is continual, it is not something, therefore, that happens once and is never needed or obtained again. This is a Protestant belief, who [Protestants] believe that once a man makes his confession of faith, that confession thereby makes him justified before the eyes of God, he is thus confirmed in that state of justification forever, and, that being such, can never lose that state of justification, no matter how sinful a man may be, because he was justified, and believes in that justification. Obviously, this is not the theology that St. Cyprian espouses, he above states that baptism is the beginning of our sanctification, and that we must continue in our own deeds and hope towards that goal. He says:

“What, dearest brethren, will be that glory of those who labour charitably—how great and high the joy when the Lord begins to number His people, and, distributing to our merits and good works the promised rewards, to give heavenly things for earthly, eternal things for temporal, great things for small; to present us to the Father, to whom He has restored us by His sanctification; to bestow upon us immortality and eternity, to which He has renewed us by the quickening of His blood; to bring us anew to paradise, to open the kingdom of heaven, in the faith and truth of His promise!”

“For this palm of works of salvation let us gladly and readily strive; let us all, in the struggle of righteousness, run with God and Christ looking on; and let us who have already begun to be greater than this life and the world, slacken our course by no desire of this life and of this world. If the day shall find us, whether it be the day of reward or of persecution, furnished, if swift, if running in this contest of charity, the Lord will never fail of giving a reward for our merits: in peace He will give to us who conquer, a white crown for our labours; in persecution, He will accompany it with a purple one for our passion.”[10]

He speaks of the glory of those who labour in good deeds, and encourages us to strive after such deeds, to be found worth His promises; and goes on to say:

“Moreover, in another place, the same apostle instructs the righteous and the doers of good works, and them who lay up for themselves treasures in heaven with the increase of the divine usury, that they also should be patient; and teaches them, saying, “Therefore, while we have time, let us labour in that which is good unto all men, but especially to them who are of the household of faith. But let us not faint in well-doing, for in its season we shall reap.”

“It is the wholesome precept of our Lord and Master: “He that endures,” says He, “unto the end, the same shall be saved; “(2 Matthew 10:22) and again, “If you continue,” says He, “in my word, you shall be truly my disciples; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”(2 John 8:31-32) We must endure and persevere, beloved brethren, in order that, being admitted to the hope of truth and liberty, we may attain to the truth and liberty itself; for that very fact that we are Christians is the substance of faith and hope. But that hope and faith may attain to their result, there is need of patience.”[11]

He says to endure and persevere, and tells us to do good works, and states that they are necessary that we may reap their rewards and be found worthy of the Promises of God and of eternal salvation. Works, then, are necessary, and are not something that is superfluous and not of necessity, and that they must be accompanied with faith and hope and worked in charity, as is the constant teachings of the Church, found in Trent, and continued to this day, St. Cyprian clearly was not Protestant, nor espousing Protestant theology, but, rather, that of the Catholic Church and of the scriptures.

 

St. Gregory of Nyssa: Some Protestants often claim that this great saint of the Catholic Church held Protestant theologies, such as sola scriptura, and often, they’ll quote some text from his writings to attempt to justify this, this is one such example:

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”

But let’s see its full context:

“Now they charge us with innovation, and frame their complaint against us in this way:—They allege that while we confess three Persons we say that there is one goodness, and one power, and one Godhead. And in this assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say so. But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” [12]

The saint appeals to “custom” before the scripture, but it is only when his opponent is not accepting his “custom” and he theirs, he then makes the appeal to scripture, a far cry from sola scriptura as the one rule of faith. This “custom” would appear to mean in its proper sense “Tradition”, to which St. Gregory first appeals to resolve the theological dispute.

Even elsewhere, we see St. Gregory’s faith in Tradition:

“Nicæa set forth the right and sound faith, and that without due discrimination and inquiry we received into the communion of the Catholic Church those who formerly assembled at Ancyra under the name of Marcellus. Therefore, that falsehood may not overpower the truth…” [13]

First of all, we notice that the Council of Nicea is seen to have set forth the right and sound faith authoritatively, not the scriptures, and then we notice how that council is identified with the Catholic Church. Can this be a Protestant accepting Catholic authority? Surely not, for were Gregory so disposed as Protestant in his theologies, he would not be accepting and referring to an authority which he deems as non-Christian as setting forth authoritatively Christian doctrine, we may thus conclude that St. Gregory was not Protestant in his theology either.

“… it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?” [14]

And again:

“The question is, as I said, very difficult to deal with: yet, if we should be able to find anything that may give support to the uncertainty of our mind, so that it may no longer totter and waver in this monstrous dilemma, it would be well: on the other hand, even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep for ever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers, and seek from the Lord the reason which is the advocate of our faith: and if this be found by any of those endowed with grace, we must give thanks to Him who bestowed the grace; but if not, we shall none the less, on those points which have been determined, hold our faith unchangeably.”

“But inasmuch as, since we composed that written defence of our conduct, again some of the brethren who are of one mind with us begged us to make separately with our own lips a profession of our faith, which we entertain with full conviction, following as we do the utterances of inspiration and the tradition of the Fathers, we deemed it necessary to discourse briefly of these heads as well. We confess that the doctrine of the Lord, which He taught His disciples…” [15]

So, here, when questioned as to a profession of faith, he makes appeal to the Tradition of the Fathers, not solely the scriptures. We have here, not a sola scriptura bible-waving preacher, but a Father of the Catholic Church, who appeals to the faith of the fathers and of the Council as the rule of faith, including, but not limited to the scriptures.

 

There are those Protestants who will claim that St. Irenaeous held the “Reformed” doctrine of sola scriptura using out of context quotes from his writings attempting substatiate this:

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” [16]

But let’s see the full context of what Irenaeus said:

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”

It does not say that Peter was not in Rome, and was busy distributing Bibles for everyone’s individual private interpretation, but that he was actually in Rome, laying the foundations of the Church, a truth that many Protestants continue to contest, despite the historical and archaeological testimony in an effort to beef up their rejection of the Papacy and the office of the bishop of Rome.

Irenaeus goes on:

“When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. …For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.” [17]

“But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. …It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.”[18]

How many times have we heard that one? How many Protestants claim that they know better than the priests and bishops, and better than the Traditions of the Apostles, saying that they have the truth? And that they consent neither to Tradition, nor anyone else’s interpretation of the scriptures? We see here how Irenaeus has had this experience, and how he referred them first to Tradition of the Church.

“…the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times…”[19]

Apostolic succession and Tradition both being preached by St. Irenaeous. He is preaching the succession of the bishops and the Tradition of the Apostles, not private interpretation of a sole volume of Divine Revelation and individual priestly qualities and sola fide, he teaches Catholic theologies, not Protestant ones.

“…all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.” [20]

More of Apostolic Tradition, and here the evidence that the Church was built in Rome, and that Peter was indeed in Rome, contrary to common Protestant rhetoric, and that the episcopate, which Protestants deny ever existed, was indeed passed on in succession, contrary again to Protestant belief. It also shows that the Church in Rome had preeminent authority over all of the others, again, contrary to common Protestant objections, so was Irenaeus really a Protestant? I let the evidence speak for itself.

“To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” [21]

Proof of the succession of the episcopate in Rome, which had authority over all of the others as seen above, and also proof of the Apostolic Traditions being preserved and passed down by the episcopate in Rome, and that it preached the truth, and that this is indeed the succession of the Apostle’s See in Rome, which preached the Apostolic Traditions in truth.

“But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.
…He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. …Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.” [21]

The Tradition of the Apostles again, being handed down by the Church, being a true witness. This is not Protestantism, but is the preaching and proof of the infallibility of the Apostolic See in Rome which we call the Papacy. St. Irenaeous, then, was not a Protestant, but a faithful Catholic and a saint.

St. Basil the Great was one of the great Fathers of Catholic monasticism, and some Protestants affirm that he was Reformed in his theology, especically regarding scripture. I contest this and will here attempt to show his opinions regarding those unwritten traditions which Protestants reject.

“All those whose soundness of character leads them to hold the dignity of antiquity to be more honourable than mere new-fangled novelty, and who have preserved the tradition of their fathers unadulterated…” [22]

Contary to Protestant claims, the Fathers did not believe in sola fide, this is one passage that devastates protestants, who put down antiquity in favour of their novelty, despising the Traditions of the fathers.

“But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you.”[23]

St. Basil here says that Tradition is based in scripture, and thus is not contrary to it in that it is deduced from scripture, but our separated “bretheren” tell us that Tradition is contrary to the scriptures, and that the early Fathers believed in sola scriptura, and did not take Tradition seriously at all for this reason, but this begs the question, what “early fathers” do Protestants appeal to? It can’t be Augustine, Ambrose, Basil, Athanasius ect. for they are saints of the Catholic Church, holding distinctly Catholic doctrines, believing in Tradition and the authority of the epicopate. Plainly, then, these Protestants who make such dishonest claims are taking the Fathers out of context to substantiate their unorthodox positions.

“Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture concerning It as those which we have received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.” [24]

St. Basil equates, in his discourse, the unwritten unanimous tradition of the Fathers with the scriptures to prove his point, not to the only real authority, the scripture, which he would do if he were Protestant.

“But the object of attack is faith. The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine” is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors,—of course bona fide debtors—they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. But we will not slacken in our defence of the truth. We will not cowardly abandon the cause.”[25]

Basil is defending the apostolic traditions against those who seek to undermine it and strip it of its authority, and speaks of those who demand written proof, just as do the Protestants, and who reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers as attackers of the faith.

“Can I then, perverted by these men’s seductive words, abandon the tradition which guided me to the light, which bestowed on me the boon of the knowledge of God, whereby I, so long a foe by reason of sin, was made a child of God? But, for myself, I pray that with this confession I may depart hence to the Lord, and them I charge to preserve the faith secure until the day of Christ, and to keep the Spirit undivided from the Father and the Son, preserving, both in the confession of faith and in the doxology, the doctrine taught them at their baptism.”[26]

He speaks of a doctrine taught by the traditions of the Fathers which served to help convert him, and preaches the preservation of it, so much for a Protestant Basil.

“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more.” [27]

The death blow; he speaks of the practices of the Church derived from both tradition and scripture in correlation to the true faith and the pure gospel, and then proceeds to speak of the importance of unwritten Tradition.

“In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. “Dogma” and “Kerugma” are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One form of this silence is the obscurity employed in Scripture, which makes the meaning of”dogmas” difficult to be understood for the very advantage of the reader…”[28]

He is preaching the significance of unwritten precepts and practices in the understanding of the mysteries of the faith, to keep them in the minds and hearts of the faithful by living them out, and then tells us why the scriptures are obscure in some areas, whereas protestants tell us that the scriptures are clear, and interpret themselves, but not according to St. Basil.

“Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness” is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;—which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;—a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?” [29]

This sounds familiar.

“For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” (1 Corinthians 11:2) and “Hold fast the traditions which you have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.” One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time.” [30]

St. Basil confesses here that he abides by the unwritten traditions of the Fathers, St. Basil, then, was not a sola scripturist. We see here testimony to the handing down of unwritten traditions, not of scripture as a sole rule of faith.

“The institutions of the Gospel have now everywhere been thrown into confusion by want of discipline; there is an indescribable pushing for the chief places while every self-advertisertries to force himself into high office. The result of this lust for ordering is that our people are in a state of wild confusion for lack of being ordered; the exhortations of those in authority are rendered wholly purposeless and void, because there is not a man but, out of his ignorant impudence, thinks that it is just as much his duty to give orders to other people, as it is to obey any one else.”[31]

Notice the bolded portion, this sounds just like private interpretation of the protestants, who in their ignorance and impudence think that it is just as much their duty to propound dogma and order others by it as anyone else. It seems like he is speaking of the error and imputence of early Protestants, so, contrary to Protestant claims, he is actually opposing Protestantism and expounding Catholic Tradition.

“Wherefore we too are undismayed at the cloud of our enemies, and, resting our hope on the aid of the Spirit, have, with all boldness, proclaimed the truth. Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day.“[32]

We See in St. Augustine quoted in defense of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

“The faith will totter if the authority of the Holy Scripture loses its hold on men. We must surrender ourselves to the authority of Holy Scripture, for it can neither mislead nor be misled.”

The first thing one might notice about this quotation is that it is flawed. The closest thing in Augustine’s writings to the above quotation is this:

“Now faith will totter if the authority of Scripture begin to shake. And then, if faith totter, love itself will grow cold. For if a man has fallen from faith, he must necessarily also fall from love; for he cannot love what he does not believe to exist. But if he both believes and loves, then through good works, and through diligent attention to the precepts of morality, he comes to hope also that he shall attain the object of his love. And so these are the three things to which all knowledge and all prophecy are subservient: faith, hope, love.” [33]

First of all I’d like to point out that this is nothing like what was provided, and secondly, that he speaks of good works in charity and diligently following the moral law as we saw above in the writings of St. Cyprian, a Catholic concept; this quotation which Protestants sometimes use to support their claims actually defeats them. Another interesting thing is that later on in the same text we see this:

“And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces. So that in their case, I think, the saying is already fulfilled: “Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away”[34]

And this is defeating the Protestant belief in the necessity of the scriptures unto salvation, at least by St. Augustine, this means that St. Augustine did not believe as the Protestants do. Again, St. Augustine continues:

“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.”[35]Here St. Augustine says that our guilt, which “like a hedge of thorns” barred against us the gate of heaven, is forgiven by Christ’s death for us. And he says that therefore he gave the keys to his Church, so that what it binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and what it looses on earth will be loosed on heaven, and he goes on to unequivocally link the forgiveness of sins with this exercising of the power of the keys.

Now, it should be pointed out that no Protestant would believe such things as they are strictly Catholic, and his agenda is anti-Catholic. It’s unfortunately true that such ones have no quibble in saying that St. Augustine was wrong when he said this. However, it needs be said that it is a gross distortion of St. Augustine’s faith as a Catholic to misrepresent his writings which (superficially and out of their full and true context) seem to suggest that he held to any Protestant doctrine on which Protestants err. Setting aside the fact that what St. Augustine says clearly requires that the keys remain with the Church, and did not pass from this earth with St. Peter and the other Apostles, and apart from the fact that this strongly implies the fact and necessity of apostolic succession, something important is required by the fact that God has given the keys to the Church. If, as Christ said, what the Church binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven, and if, as he said, sins will be forgiven or retained on the word of the Church, then one of two things must be true. Either Christ has bound himself to confirm in heaven the errors of sinful men, or Christ has bound himself to ensure, somehow, some way, in some circumstances or other, that the Church will act infallibly. The first is impossible. Therefore the second must be true.Furthermore, St. Augustine held to the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity, something that no Protestant assents to. The inquiry concerning the perpetual virignity of Mary:

“Whether the Lord and Ruler of the world did indeed fill the womb of a virgin? did His mother endure the protracted fatigues of ten months, and, being yet a virgin, in due season bring forth her child, and continue even after that with her virginity intact? Was He whom the universe is supposed to be scarcely able to contain concealed within the small body of a crying infant?”

St. Augustine responds to it thus:

“The body of the infant Jesus was brought forth from the womb of His mother, still a virgin, by the same power which afterwards introduced His body when He was a man through the closed door into the upper chamber. (John 20:26); Here, if the reason of the event is sought out, it will no longer be a miracle; if an example of a precisely similar event is demanded, it will no longer be unique. Let us grant that God can do something which we must admit to be beyond our comprehension. In such wonders the whole explanation of the work is the power of Him by whom it is wrought.” [36]

St. Augustine defends the Perpetual Virginity by comparison with Our Lord’s action in passing through the closed door of the upper room (Jn. 20:26). Now this leaves the Protestant, who wants to claim St. Augustine as one of their own, in a bit of a jam. Either they must concede that he did not believe in sola scriptura, in which case their appeal to him in defense of it is ridiculous; or they must say that they are wrong themselves in denying the perpetual virginity of Mary, which St. Augustine has defended by the Bible1; or they must say that St. Augustine got the perpetual virginity wrong - but if he got this wrong, there is no reason that he could not be wrong on sola scriptura as well, and so the appeal to him as an authority is demolished on their own terms - so if they intend to use him as an “authority” they have failed; and clearly they have failed if their intent is to “prove” something to Catholics.

We’ve seen in the Fathers the Catholic doctrines of Apostolic Succession, Justfication by the cooperation of faith and works, the defense and promotion and references to unwritten Christian Traditions as authoritative, and the defense of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but we have not seen the Protestant beliefs of sola fide, sola scriptura, and the priesthood of all believers. Protestants attempt to find Protestantism in the Church Fathers, but it simply is not there, and only by a ridiculous nominalistic abuse of words can they even pretend otherwise.2

Endnotes:
_______________________________
[1] Pope St. Clement I, Second Epistle, #7
[2] Ibid. #10
[3] Martin Luther, from the work “Trischreden”, Wittenberg Edition, Vol. VI., p. 160
[4] Martin Luther, the Babylonian Captivity
[5] Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521
[6] Pope St. Clement I, Second Epistle
[7] De Liv. Chris. Tom. 4:2
[8] Comm. ad Galat, p.310
[9] Treatise #4
[10] Treatise #8
[11] Treatise #9
[12] St. Gregory of Nyssa,“On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327
[13] Letter#2
[14] Against Eunomius, IV, 6
[15] Letter #2
[16] Against Heresies 3.1.1
[17] Against Heresies, III.2, #1
[18] Ibid. #2
[19] Ibid. III.3
[20] Ibid. #’s 2-3
[21] Ibid. #3
[21] Ibid. #4)
[22] De Spiritu Sanctu, Ch. 7, # 16
[23] Ibid. Ch. 7, # 16
[24] Ibid. Ch. 9, # 22
[25] Ibid. Ch. 10, # 25
[26] Ibid. Ch. 10, # 26
[27] Ibid. Ch. 27, # 66
[28] Ibid. Ch. 27, # 66
[29] Ibid. Ch. 27, # 67
[30] Ibid. Ch. 29, # 71
[31] Ibid. Ch. 30, # 77
[32] Ibid. Ch. 30, # 79
[33] On Christian Doctrine, Bk. I, Ch. 37
[34] Ibid. Ch. 39
[35] Ibid. Ch’s 17 & 18
[36] Letter 137, Ch. 2

Footnotes:
____________
1. Earlier in the same text where he defends the perpetual virginity of Mary, St. Augustine quotes Sirach as scripture, a book of the Bible which Protestants reject.

Acknowledgments:

2. A special thanks to Reggie of The Supplement for his inspiration of and contribution to the development of this essay.

Justification: Is it by faith or works?

I recently found myself in a discussion with some protestants on the issue of justification, and, as Protestants do, they would pretend that it is either or; like it’s either the Bible or Tradition, Christ or the Pope, that it is either faith or works. In regard to this issue I intend to show from not only the Bible, but Tradition, and the Fathers of the Early Church that it is both faith and works which contribute to the justification of man before God.

The phrase “faith alone” is found in only one place in the Bible, and oddly enough, it is refuting the Protestant view that man is justified by faith alone. The phrase comes from the second chapter of the epistle of St. James which states “you see that by works a man is justified and not by faith alone?”. I’m sure that this topic has been very well covered by much better authors than myself, but as also, the error of sola fide is ongoing and still remains a big issue for Protestants, so, again, I’ll treat this topic with the scripture, the Fathers, and from the Church pronouncements.

It is for good reason that Our Lord says “Every tree that brings forth not good fruits shall be cut down and shall be cast into the fire“ (Matt. 7.19) because it is important for the faithful to understand that they must yield good fruit in order to be numbered among the elect. Our Lord is here giving warning to the faithful that faith without works is not enough to be saved. and, therefore, he adds: “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven“.

But, first of all, before we get carried away, just what is a “good work”? Good works are actions that are performed, while in the state of sanctifying grace, according to God’s will. These are actions inspired by faith, and they are necessary for salvation, as they are the manifestation of faith, and are what is referred to in the gospel as “good fruit”. This is not to say, of course, that a man may work his way into heaven, but that these works are a bi-product of faith. Christ explicitly states that those [souls] who yield not forth good fruit [works as a manifestation of their faith] shall be cut down and cast into the fire (damned). It is therefore, a great error for one to perceive that they may attain salvation simply because they yield not forth bad fruit [commit no evil].
Thus, those who do neither good nor evil, shall not see salvation, as heaven is the reward of those who have performed well, and if no good work has been done, then they may not expect a reward, as St. Ambrose illustrates in his 41st Letter: “And so He first bestows on us a gift by baptism, and afterwards gives more abundantly to those who serve Him faithfully. So, then, the benefits of Christ are… rewards of virtue“; so, we see that He only gives to those who serve him, and serve Him faithfully, and also, that the rewards of Christ are a consequence of virtue.

The Holy Ghost is the sanctifier, who sanctifies the world and men, but men can only be sanctified if they comply with that grace of the Holy Spirit through faith, hope, and love of God and his neighbor; and he must also perform other “works”. It is a dogma of the Church that we must, in union with the Holy Ghost, of course, “merit” heaven by his “good works”.

We see from St. Paul that God rewards good works: “If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward“ (I Cor. 3:14); and “Do not therefore lose your confidence which hath a great reward. For patience is necessary for you: that, doing the will of God, you may receive the promise.“ (Heb. 10:35-36) , and still more, he exhorts us to do good works in these words: “… run that you may obtain“ (I Cor. 9:24); he describes this life as a fight, a fight that we must win in order to be saved, which means doing and not simply being: “Fight the good fight of faith. Lay hold on eternal life…“ (I Tim. 6:12), and encourages St. Timothy, which applies to all of us, “To do good, to be rich in good work, to give easily, to communicate to others“ (I Tim. 6:18), that we may attain eternal life.

Now we have seen that works are necessary, but we must also understand that it is not simply works, nor is it simply faith, as we shall now cover. We know that we cannot work our way into heaven, no matter how holy we are. This entails that one must have faith, but what if we have faith, what if we have faith enough to move the mountains, is faith all we need to be saved?
The Holy Spirit, speaking through St. James in his epistle, says “What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?
So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself“ (James 2:14-17). This clearly shows how faith without works is not sufficient for salvation. He goes on to say: “Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:19-20). Once again reiterating the fact that faith without works is dead, but he also adds that the devils believe and tremble, showing once again that faith is not all that is required. St. James goes on to say: “Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?…For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:24-26). He states that faith without works is dead, but then adds “not by faith only” meaning that it [salvation] is by works, through faith, meaning both, he certainly does not say works only, and he does not say faith only, but that they are one, and must be done in unison with faith. Apparently we must not only believe, but we must “fight the good fight” so to speak. St. Paul says “Work out thy salvation” now we know that we can’t work our way into heaven so what does St. Paul mean? He means we must not only believe BUT we must also as St. Paul says: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle… Exhort your hearts and confirm you in every good work and word.“But be ye doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. which means that we must hold the faith and keep it alive in everything we do, and do good works in faith. St. James further illustrates this: “ But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work: this man shall be blessed in his deed. “ (James 1:22-25). This is simply further driving home the point that we must be a doer of the word and not simply a hearer, and that the doer will be blessed in his deed.

We also notice that when eternal life is promised it is always in the future.
It is not that “we are saved” but that “we shall be saved”. So, we may not in truth say “I am saved” for he is a liar unless he be in the company of the Blessed. “Which some promising, have erred concerning the faith”. The Council of Trent speaks thus of this error: “If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.“ (sess. VI, Can. XIII) and “If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.” (Sess. VI, Can. XIV). It is said by St. Paul “That thou keep the commandment without spot, blameless, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.“ and “But thanks be to God, that you …have obeyed from the heart unto that form of doctrine into which you have been delivered“ meaning that we must hold the faith [that means live the faith and believe it inviolately], and not simply believe. For not even the great St. Paul was assured of his salvation, he too had to “run the Race” and “fight the good fight” even though he had been so great an apostle, even though the Holy Spirit had spake through him and delivered to us many epistles in the new testament.
We must not say to ourselves that because we read scripture and sing a couple of hymns and clap our hands and listen to a pastor provide us with his private interpretation of scripture that we are going to see God no matter what. We must practice virtue and be obedient to the traditions which God has given us. We must rely on His mercy and fulfill God’s requests.

It is a great error for one to perceive that it is possible to work one’s way into heaven, as defined by the Council of Trent: “If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.” (Sess. VI, Can. I) Thus we see that the Protestant perception that Catholics believe that they can work their way to salvation is complete and totally false, but that Catholics hold that one must work by grace, through faith.
The council goes on to proclaim that it is error for one to assume that he may attain salvation without observing the commandments of God: “If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.” (Sess. VI, Can. XX).

We know that it is impossible to please God without faith, and therefore, without it will not be saved (Heb. 11:6), Justification is accomplished by faith and works. Protestants will argue against this by citing Eph. 2.9 which states that it is not by works that we are saved, but who is saying that we are saved by works, the Catholic Church does not say this, so where do they get the idea that Catholic believe that we are saved by works? St. Paul there says that faith is a gift from God that does not include “works of the Law”. But according to this Protestant logic, St. Paul contradicts himself as shown above he says we must do good works in order to attain salvation as shown above, so obviously, the interpretation that the Protestants give this is not the correct context that this verse is to be understood by. In Galations Ch. 5 we see the context that this is to be read by “faith that worketh” meaning that faith is what drives the works, it is faith that powers them, and gives them life. This verse goes on to say “faith that worketh by charity” meaning that we have faith, by love, and St. Paul also says that faith without charity is nothing, meaning, that faith is accomplished by charity, which is an act and faith, which is an act of the will, are one; thus charitable works, it’s why we have charities. Faith is a gift of God, and it is not achieved by men, and it is God who causes all of this, but, however, He requires of us actions on our part in order to perfect that faith that he has so graciously given us (James 2:22). St. James says that the man who know that he must do works and does them not is a sinner, (James 4:17) meaning that it is sin not to do good works. Faith and works are to be one, to be united as the body and the spirit are one as once again St. James tells us “For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead“ (James 2:26) as St. Irenaeus, one of the most illustrious of the Early Church Fathers says: “For these two, faith and good works, rejoice in each other’s company, and agree together and fight side by side to set man in the Presence of God”.

All of this means that we must have both faith and works, and not simply one or the other.
We see how the argument that the Protestants use, that is the either or, is a faulty argument and falls short of a correct understanding of the scriptures according to the context they were written in. The Bible must be read as one, not simply taking verses and placing them to stand all by themselves as to serve as a rule, without a measurement, context, by which to read the rule.
And so, as we progress in our series on Justification, we will see the true context of what is meant by works, vs. works of the law, and we will see how justification is an ongoing process which is a continuing thing, and not something that happens all at once, but is something we must strive after each and every day. We will also see how justification begins on the inside, and that it is accomplished by our own dispositions and faith and is not simply what happens as a result of a divine pronouncement; so stay with us and we’ll bring all of this and more to light in the near future.

Justification: Works of the Law

This is part II in our series on justification, in which I shall show the true context of what is meant by works of the law, and how they do not refer to works performed in the Grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Protestants love to cite Romans 3:20, which states “Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin.” and then again by the verse Galations 2:16: “But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” The Protestant takes these two verses out of context, but how? The Protestant would have us believe that works are not necessary for justification and that we are justified by faith alone, but, then that would be a contradiction wouldn’t it? We know St. James says “Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble” meaning that faith alone is not good enough, so, does scripture contradict itself? If the scripture can contradict itself, then it cannot be divinlely inspired, and thus, the basis for atheism, that the Bible is full of contradictions. In order to understand this, we’ll need to know what St. Paul and St. James were writing about.

At the beginning of Romans III we notice this: “What advantage then hath the Jew: or what is the profit of circumcision?” Okay, we know that the Jews continued to follow the old law, and continued in the works of the old law such as circumcision. What was happening was there were some christians who were following some of the rituals of the old law as if it were necessary, and St. Paul is here clarifying for them that they do not need to do this. We know that the works of the old law don’t contribute to salvation as it was defined by the Council of Florence: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.” (Sess. 11, Feb. 4. 1442) This further clarifies what St. Paul meant by the works of the old law, the “matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments” which some continued to follow , and St. Paul was telling them that that was an error, and that they no longer needed to place themselves under the works of the old law to obtain salvation. This is the theme throughout the whole of the same chapter [Romans 3]; but the Protestants again would have us believe otherwise. In Galations 2 we see exactly what we saw in the council of Florence: “But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” that the old law is not salvific, and we can not put our faith in the functions of the old law for our salvation, but in Christ. We will now compare the two [Council of florence in italics, and Galations in normal font]:

“that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally.”

“But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”

and now Florence and Romans:

“what is the profit of circumcision?… Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him.”

“the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law… All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation..”

And also, we seek clarification from the Bible. Later in Galations 3, we see this “Is he the God of the Jews only?” clarifying that it is not by the law which the Jews follow, the mosaic law, by which the Jews followed as required in the Old Testament, we see works of the law, and circumcision, and Jews, all of this refers to the old law, by which we are not saved, but by the faith in Jesus Christ as confirmed by the Gospel “he who does not believe shall not be saved”.
The Council of Florence confirms this by stating that no one who follows the requirements of the law can be saved, this is exactly what St. Paul it telling the Romans and the Galations.
Clearly, St. Paul and St. James are talking about two different things, St. Paul is talking about the functions of the old law, and St. James is talking about good works such as feeding the hungry, and visiting the sick ect. Nowhere do we see faith alone in this issue, it is not in the scriptures.

For instance, if we take into consideration Romans 4:9 , which further clarifies what is meant by works of the law and circumcision , we notice the context which St. Paul intended his earlier statement to be read by. And, as circumcision was a work of the old law reuired for the justification of the people of Israel, so he states that one no longer needs the works of the old law to find justification before God. Nowhere does he mention good works, such as feeding the hungry ect.

Also, another weapon of the Protestants is Ep. 28-9 which states: “For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. Not of works, that no man may glory.” which simply means that we are saved by the free gift of grace from God, and not by our own works, done without that grace. Again, this does not mean “Faith alone “, it means that we are saved through faith, by grace, not by any works tht we do all by ourselves without the grace of God, because we can do nothing without God. Protestants misquote this in order for them to legitametize their claims that the Catholic Traditions contradict the Bible. Paul simply means that we are not saved by the operations of the Law, but by Faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul means that we cannot do anything of ourselves that we might attribute to our own selves, and not to God, that he means that we can only produce salutary works by faith in the Lord, by His Graces bestowed upon us. This is why in Romans Ch. 4, he states that if by works Abraham was justified, he would have been able to attribute it to himself, that he should be able to boast it. This does not, however, negate the words of St. James which states that we must have good works done by faith through grace to be justified, we know that these we must have; and since they be done by God’s grace that their fruitfulness is attributed to God’s grace.

So, next time in our series on Justification, we will see how justification is an ongoing process which is a continuing thing, and not something that happens all at once, but is something we must strive after each and every day. We will also see how justification begins on the inside, and that it is accomplished by our own dispositions and faith and is not simply what happens as a result of a divine pronouncement.