Belief In Faith Alone And Eternal Security At The Time Of Caesarius Of Arles

Caesarius lived in the fifth and sixth centuries. I've occasionally mentioned him in other posts. I recently saw a quotation from him related to sola fide and eternal security, from his Sermon 186. I'd read some of his other material, but not that sermon. Having read it since then, I want to quote a relevant portion of it, then comment on it:

"For thus he says: 'Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.' [1 John 5:1] Who is there who does not believe that Jesus is the Christ? Whoever does not live in the way which Christ commanded. For many say: I believe; and they think that faith alone without good works is sufficient. People who are of this sort should heed the blessed Apostle James when he says: 'Faith without works is useless.' [James 2:20]" (Sermon 186:1, in Mary Magdaleine Mueller, trans., St. Caesarius: Sermons, Volume II [81-186] [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964], 490)

He refers to "many" who hold such views. He doesn't go into much detail, and he may have intended to address multiple groups simultaneously. As I've documented in previous posts (here, here and here), there were multiple forms of eternal security advocated by a wide variety of individuals and groups leading up to the time of Caesarius. He didn't necessarily have only one group in mind. His language is vague enough that it could include more than one view. Keep in mind what I said in an earlier post, to the effect that two different forms of eternal security don't have to be the same in order to have some degree of overlap. Partial corroboration isn't as significant as full corroboration, but it does have some significance.

It's possible that one or more of the individuals Caesarius refers to thought that salvation could be lost with a loss of faith, even if the absence of good works or the presence of bad ones wouldn't bring about a loss of salvation. But their views don't have to fully corroborate eternal security in order to offer partial corroboration.

Since we have so much evidence for pre-Reformation belief in justification through faith alone and eternal security both before and after the time of Caesarius, the primary value of his comments isn't in his mentioning that such views had been held by some people. Rather, what's most significant is that he refers to how there were many who held such views.

It could be objected that Caesarius may have only been referring to laymen, not anybody of a more prominent nature. But I've given examples of more prominent individuals advocating these views in other posts. And though Caesarius may have only been referring to laymen, he also may not have been. Furthermore, as I documented in the first of my recent posts on eternal security, critics of the concept often make claims about church history that have implications for what was believed by less prominent figures in history, not just more prominent ones. That post also explains that all of us, including critics of eternal security, rely on less prominent sources, even anonymous ones, in a lot of contexts, including contexts that are highly important and some that involve what we believe about the pre-Reformation era.