In the context of discussing baptismal regeneration, I've mentioned that there was widespread disagreement among the extrabiblical sources before the Reformation regarding initiatory rites. Things like regeneration, the forgiveness of sins, and the reception of the Holy Spirit would sometimes be placed at the time of baptism, but often would be placed in some other context instead (faith prior to baptism, prebaptismal anointing with oil, postbaptismal laying on of hands, etc.). The extrabiblical sources before the Reformation widely disagreed about baptismal efficacy, despite how popular it is to falsely claim that everybody before the Reformation believed in baptismal regeneration, that almost everybody did, or some such thing. What modern advocates of baptismal regeneration attribute to baptism was often attributed to prebaptismal faith, anointing with oil, foot washing, or something else by many pre-Reformation sources. For a discussion of some patristic examples, see here. On medieval sources, see here. And I've provided other examples in other posts.
I've also discussed widespread soteriological disagreements among pre-Reformation sources in contexts other than initiatory rites. See here for some examples of extrabiblical sources before the Reformation who believed in eternal security. And see here for some examples of how the sources who rejected eternal security disagreed with each other about which sins are mortal and which aren't. As that post mentions, there also were disagreements about whether certain activities qualified as sin of any type, regardless of whether they were mortal.
In the process of reading a collection of the sermons of Ceasarius of Arles, I came across another example of this sort of thing:
"Many of our brothers and sons are anxiously concerned whether a man who repents in sickness and immediately dies can obtain complete forgiveness. Not only are there inquiries on the subject, but even contentions marked with considerable animosity. Some say that one who repents thus is forgiven entirely, while others say it does no good." (Mary Magdeleine Mueller, trans., St. Caesarius: Sermons, Volume I [1-80] [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004], Sermon 60:1, p. 295)
Elsewhere, I've quoted Caesarius' opposition to advocates of eternal security in his day. And notice that he refers to "contentions marked with considerable animosity". Keep that in mind when you hear people talking about the alleged unity of pre-Reformation sources.
In another sermon in the collection quoted above - a sermon that apparently didn't come from Caesarius, but has sometimes circulated among his sermons - we get an example of how far some pre-Reformation sources went in advocating justification through works, to the point of taking this much of an anti-Biblical position against those who repent on their deathbed:
"Let him not wait to seek penance until the last moment of his life, when he may no longer be able to fulfill it. That sort of idea is foolish, dearly beloved. The sinner cannot ask for penance unless he will perform it. Merely the word of the penitent does not suffice to wipe out sins, because in satisfaction for great sins not only words but actions are sought. Of course, even at the very last moment penance is given because it cannot be denied. However, we cannot be a guarantee that one who has thus sought it deserves to be absolved. Indeed, how can one who is exhausted do penance, established as he is at the very end of his life? How can he do penance when he can no longer offer works of satisfaction for himself? Therefore, the penance which is asked by the weak is weak; the penance which is asked by a man only when he is sick is sickly; that which is sought by a man only when dying, it, too, I fear, will die. For this reason, dearly beloved, let anyone who wishes to find God's mercy do penance in this world while he is in good health, in order that he may be saved in the world to come." (ibid., Sermon 62, p. 304)
No comments:
Post a Comment