Gavin Ortlund recently released a video providing an overview of a Protestant perspective on justification. Much of the video involves a comparison between Protestant views on the subject and Catholic understandings of it. A large portion of the video responds to the common objection that there isn't enough historical precedent for a Protestant view of justification prior to the Reformation.
I want to expand on what he says about that issue. For my argument that justification through faith alone is found in scripture and in sources between the time of the Bible and the Reformation, see here, here, and here, among other posts on the subject that can be found in our archives. Read the comments sections of those threads as well, since I discuss other sources and other issues there and interact with critics. My posts in those threads include documentation of belief in justification prior to baptism among sources between the New Testament era and the Reformation. Gavin cites John Chrysostom as his primary example of a pre-Reformation source whose soteriology seems to agree with certain Protestant themes, but he acknowledges that Chrysostom believed in baptismal justification. I concur with Gavin that we don't have to agree with every soteriological belief of a source in order to cite that source in support of our view on a soteriological issue. Partial agreement is less significant than full agreement, but lesser significance isn't equivalent to no significance. Citing Chrysostom on some issues while disagreeing with him on others is fine. But there are sources who advocate justification apart from baptism in the patristic era and other pre-Reformation contexts, and that fact gets far less attention than it should. My posts linked above discuss the topic and give it more attention than it typically gets.
I also want to mention that I've discussed Hilary of Poitiers' soteriology in his commentary on the gospel of Matthew in a lengthy thread here. Gavin referred to Hilary's material in passing, but chose to focus on Chrysostom without elaborating on Hilary's views. For those who are interested in Hilary, see my thread just linked.
You Rock Jason!
ReplyDeleteJason, there are a number of early church writers that advocated a form of sola fide. You might be interested in checking out the anonymous Roman presbyter, to whom Erasmus assigned the title/name "Ambrosiaster."
ReplyDeleteAmbrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 1:11: For the mercy of God had been given for this reason: that they should give up the works of the law, as I have often said, because God, taking pity on our weakness, decreed that the human race was saved by faith alone, along with natural law. Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts, Gerald L. Bray, ed., trans., Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 7.
Latin Text: Nam misericordia Dei ad hoc data est, ut Lex cessaret, quod saepe jam dixi; quia Deus consulens infirmitati humanae, sola fide addita legi naturali, hominum genus salvare decrevit. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:53.
Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 2:12: If the law is given, not for the righteous but for the unrighteous, whoever does not sin is a friend of the law. For him, faith alone is the way by which he is made perfect, for avoiding evil will not gain him any advantage with God unless he also believes in God, so that he may be righteous on both counts. The one righteousness is temporal, but the other is eternal. Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts, Gerald L. Bray, ed., trans., Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 18.
Latin Text: Si enim justo non est lex posita, sed injustis; qui non peccat, amicus legis est. Huic sola fides deest, per quam fiat perfectus quia nihil illi proderit apud Deum abstinere a contrariis, nisi fidem in Deum acceperit, ut sit justus per utraque; quia illa temporis justitia est, haec aeternitatis. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:67.
Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:24: They are justified freely, because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God. Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts, Gerald L. Bray, ed., trans., Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 29.
Latin Text: Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicem reddentes, sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:79.
Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:27: Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast, basing themselves on the law and claiming either to be of the race of Abraham or to have accepted the precepts of God from Moses, seeing that no one is justified before God except by faith. Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts, Gerald L. Bray, O.S.A., ed., trans., Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 30.
Latin Text: Ubi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? factorum? Non, sed per legem fidei. Reddita ratione, ad eos loquitur, qui agunt sub lege, quod sine causa glorientur, blandientes sibi de lege, et propter quod genus sint Abrahae, videntes non justificari hominem apud Deum, nisi per fidem. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:80.
Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:5: How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone. Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts, Gerald L. Bray, ed., trans., Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 32.
Latin Text: Hoc dicit, quia sine operibus legis credenti impio, id est gentili, in Christum, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam, sicut et Abrahae. Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera legis justificari se putant justificatione Abrahae; cum videant Abraham non per opera legis, sed sola fide justificatum? Non ergo opus est lex, quando impius per solam fidem justificatur apud Deum. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:82-83.
One more from Ambrosiaster...
ReplyDeleteAmbrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), commenting in the preface to his commentary on Galatians: If they [i.e., the Galatians and/or those who undermined their faith] had understood these sayings they would have turned away from the law, having learned from the preaching of John the Baptist that the law had come to an end and that once it was cut back, faith alone was necessary for salvation. Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts, Gerald L. Bray, ed., trans., Galatians-Philemon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 1.
Latin Text: Si ergo haec dicta intelligerent; a Lege recederent, scientes, a praedicatione Joannis Baptistae Legem jam cessare; ut sola fides sufficiat ad salutem, abbreviata ex Lege. In Epistolam Beati Pauli ad Galatas, Prologus, PL 17:338.
To those who might be interested, Guillaume Bignon had a very illuminating discussion with Parker Settecase on the topic of Justification, especially about confusions surrounding the Protestant and Roman Catholic positions.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqd4SsrCuUw
MacArthur’s faulty views on faith and even more surprisingly to some, justification.
ReplyDeletehttps://philosophical-theology.com/2020/08/21/john-macarthurs-lordship-salvation/