Posted on 02/07/2015 8:21:40 AM PST by RnMomof7
The articles in this series have surveyed church history from the book of Acts through the early Middle Ages, asking the question, “What did church leaders from the apostles through the church fathers believe about the essence of the gospel?” Time after time, we have found a common theme repeated: that sinners are justified before God by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. That was the fundamental message recaptured during the Protestant Reformation.
But how did this message get lost in history, such that the Reformation was necessary? The answer to that question is complex—because the shift took place gradually over centuries of time, as manmade traditions began to obscure the purity of the gospel.
Even in the ante-Nicene period (prior to 325), certain legalistic tendencies had begun to surface. But serious problems began to pour into the church in the fourth century, when the Roman Empire was “converted” from paganism to Christianity. Many former pagans simply Christianized their earlier idolatrous practices, and thus introduced dangerous errors into the church. Once planted, those pagan seeds eventually gave birth to all sorts of corrupt traditions in the medieval church (like the veneration of icons, prayers to the saints, and the elevation of Mary).i Moreover, in an environment where everyone professed to be a “Christian,” medieval preaching naturally focused more on the fruits of a righteous life than on the root of justification by faith.ii Over time that emphasis on external fruit led to a type of moralismiii from which the full-blown sacramental legalism of Roman Catholicism emerged complete in the thirteenth century.
The Development of the Papacy
Contributing to this doctrinal corruption was the rise of the papacy. In the west, the city of Rome was the most important center of theological and ecclesiological influence. Initially, that influence was kept in balance by other important Christian centers: Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. But those cities were all in the eastern half of the Roman Empire. When the western half of the Roman Empire fell in 476, Rome became isolated. Its authority went unchecked, and as a result the bishopric of Rome was elevated to unprecedented (and unbiblical) heights—developing into the papacy of the Middle Ages.
As early as the mid-400s, Leo I made the argument that the bishop of Rome held a position of elevated authority based on a supposed line of apostolic succession. Being a bishop of Rome himself, Leo contended that Peter was “the rock” in Matthew 16:18—something the early church fathers had not taught.iv Later Roman bishops built on Leo’s arguments; eventually contending that the pope was the most important spiritual leader in the church.
In the late 700s, a document known as the “Donation of Constantine” surfaced. The document claimed that Emperor Constantine (272–337), before he died, had bequeathed the western half of the Roman empire to the bishop of Rome. The Donation was later proven to be a forgery. Nonetheless, from the 8th–13th centuries, popes used it to assert both their religious and political authority in the west.
The 9th and 10th centuries were a period of particularly perverse corruption for the popes of Rome. Those interested in the darkest of the dark ages will find E. R. Chamberlin’s treatment of The Bad Popes (Dorset, 1993) to be especially eye-opening (and disturbing). Suffice it to say, the papacy was fought over by rival groups in Rome who were willing to do it whatever necessary to gain a position of such great political power.
Papal arrogance and corruption resulted in the irreconcilable breach between the eastern and western halves of the Roman church. In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent a delegation to Constantinople demanding that the Patriarch of Constantinople recognize him as the head of all the churches.
When the Patriarch refused, the cardinal leading the delegation excommunicated him. In response, the Patriarch excommunicated the Roman delegation. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have been split ever since.
Around 1230, the western church adopted the idea of a Treasure House of Merit in heaven, from which the pope could dispense indulgences (pardons) to whomever he wished. This system of indulgences became a fundraising opportunity for the Roman popes, providing the means for opulent building projects (like St. Peter’s basilica). The indulgence system allowed corrupt popes to use their religious position to extort money from spiritually desperate people on the false notion that sinners can purchase God’s grace for a price.
Papal authority and the corrupt system of indulgences would prove to be a major point of contention during the Reformation. In fact, it was the sale of indulgences that motivated Luther to write his 95 Theses; and in one of his Table Talks Luther explained:
“The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority. . . . Further he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; [claiming that] no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the church.”v
In contrast, the Reformers insisted that Christ alone is the head of the church. Any other self- proclaimed “head” constituted an imposter and a fraud.
The Official Adoption of an Apostate Gospel
Though the Councils of Orange (in 441 and 529) condemned the synergism of semi-Pelagianism, the medieval Catholic church eventually came to define justification in synergistic terms (meaning that the church presented salvation as a cooperative effort between God and man).
In the thirteenth century, at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Roman Catholic church officially made salvation contingent on good works by establishing the seven sacraments as the means by which sinners are justified.
As Norm Geisler and Josh Betancourt explain in their book, Is Rome the True Church?:
Roman Catholicism as it is known today is not the same as the Catholic Church before 1215. Even though the split between East and West occurred in 1054, most non-Catholics today would have been able to belong to the Catholic Church before the thirteenth century. Regardless of certain things the church permitted, none of its official doctrinal proclamations regarding essential salvation doctrines were contrary to orthodoxy.
While the development of Roman Catholicism from the original church was gradual, beginning in early centuries, one of the most significant turning points came in 1215, when one can see the beginning of Roman Catholicism as it is subsequently known. It is here that the seeds of what distinguishes Roman Catholicism were first pronounced as dogma. It is here that they pronounced the doctrine of transubstantiation, the primacy of the bishop of Rome, and seven sacraments. Many consider this a key turning point in the development of Roman Catholicism in distinction from non-Catholic forms of Christianity.vi
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), who was born ten years after the Fourth Lateran Council, also contributed greatly to confusion on the true nature of the gospel. As Gregg R. Allison explains:
More than anyone else, Thomas Aquinas set down the medieval Catholic notion of justification and its corollaries of grace, human effort, and merit. Although a substantial departure from Augustine and the Augustinians of the Middle Ages, his theology became determinative for the Roman Catholic Church. . . . [Thomas] emphasized the grace of God yet prescribed an important role for human cooperation in obtaining salvation. Certainly, God exercises the primary role in achieving and applying salvation, but people have their part to play as well. God moves by initiating grace in a person’s life; then that person moves toward God and moves away from sin, resulting in the forgiveness of sins. Thus, Aquinas believed in a synergy, or cooperative effort, between God and people in justification.vii
To base salvation on a cooperative effort between God’s grace and our good works presents a major problem—since it distorts the biblical teaching about grace. As Paul explained to the Romans, “If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Romans 11:6).
To add works into the equation is to frustrate grace. Certainly, good works are the fruit of salvation, but they are not the foundation of it. And it was at that very point that the Catholic church of the late Middle Ages muddled up the gospel.
Coming Full Circle
To our earlier list of twenty-five church fathers (in parts 5 and 6 of this series), we might add several voices from the later medieval period. We will briefly consider two well-known medieval theologians whose work greatly influenced the Reformers.
Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) is perhaps best remembered for his articulation of the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement (on which the Reformers built their doctrine of Substitution). In his famous work Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man), Anselm explained that it was impossible for fallen human beings to satisfy God’s justice through their own efforts. As he said it, “A sinful man can by no means do this, for a sinner cannot justify a sinner.”viii Anselm further noted that remission for sin could only take place “by the payment of the debt incurred by sin, according to the extent of sin.”ix The debt of sin was of such a magnitude that only God could pay it. Yet, Anselm reasoned, only a man could represent mankind in making such a payment. Thus, the Incarnation was necessary so that Jesus Christ—as the God-Man— could both pay an infinite debt and do so on behalf of sinful men and women.
Anselm’s conclusion was that the only way human beings can be saved is through faith in Christ. To those who do not believe the gospel, he argued: “Let them cease from mocking us, and let them hasten to unite themselves with us, who do not doubt that man can be saved through Christ; else let them despair of being saved at all. And if this terrifies them, let them believe in Christ as we do, that they may be saved.”x
Anselm rightly understood that Christ purchased salvation for sinners through His death. He alone could “remit the debt incurred by their sins, and give them what their transgressions had forfeited”xi—namely eternal life. Thus, the sinner’s only hope was Christ. As Anselm explained in another place, “[If God] shall say that you are a sinner, you say: ‘Lord, I interpose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my sins and you.’”xii In other words, the believer’s eternity rests not on his own good works, but on the perfect work of Christ.
A second medieval theologian, Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), similarly emphasized the justification that comes only by grace through faith in Christ. Four hundred years later, Martin Luther would emphasize this same theme.xiii Consider the following statements from Bernard:
“What is hidden about us in the heart of God will be revealed for us and His Spirit testifies and persuades our spirit that we are the children of God. But He convinces us of this by calling and justifying us by grace through faith.”xiv
[Speaking of Christ] “Your justice is mine, because you are made my justice from God.”xv
“For the sake of your sins He will die, for the sake of your justification He will rise, in order that you will be justified through faith and have peace with God.”xvi
“Nobody will be justified in His sight by works of the law. . . . Conscious of our deficiency, we shall cry to heaven and God will have mercy on us. . . . And on that day we shall know that God has saved us, not by righteous works that we ourselves have done, but according to His mercy.”xvii
“Because he believed the one promising, with confidence he repeats the promise, which, arising out of mercy, must be fulfilled out of justice. Hence, the crown Paul awaits is a crown of righteousness, but of God’s righteousness, not his own. It is only that He should deliver what He owes and He owes what He promised. This is the righteousness Paul is relying on, the promise of God, lest, in any way despising it and seeking to establish his own, he might be failing to submit to God’s righteousness”xviii
“The fragrance of Your wisdom comes to us in what we hear, for if anyone needs wisdom let him ask of You and You will give it to him. It is well known that You give to all freely and ungrudgingly. As for Your justice, so great is the fragrance it diffuses that You are called not only just but even justice itself, the justice that makes men just. Your power to make men just is measured by Your generosity in forgiving. Therefore the man who through sorrow for sin hungers and thirsts for justice, he will let him trust in the One who changes the sinner into a just man, and, judged righteous in terms of faith alone, have peace with God.”xix
Yet, in spite of glimpses like these (and from the earlier church fathers), the medieval Catholic Church lost sight of the true gospel. As we have already seen, by the thirteenth century, clear testimony to the true gospel within the mainstream church was largely eclipsed. The problem was compounded by the fact that the Scriptures were being held hostage in Latin.
All of this brings us back full circle to the pre-Reformers. By the middle of the twelfth-century, already, the Waldensians were questioning certain errors that they saw in the Roman Catholic Church. They were also translating the Bible and preaching in the language of the people. In the 14th-century, John Wycliffe began doing the same. In the 15th-century, John Huss followed his example, even though it cost him his life. Then, in the 16th century, Martin Luther carried the torch they had passed to him.
All of this returns us to the place where this series started. Did the Reformers invent something new in church history when they emphasized salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone?
Clearly not.
In fact, the Reformers were themselves avid students of the church fathers. They were absolutely convinced that the Reformation was as much a recovery of patristic teaching as it was of apostolic truth.
To make that point, we close with a final comment from John Calvin. In the preface to his Institutes, Calvin insisted that he could easily defend Reformation teaching using nothing but the church fathers to make his case. Calvin said it this way:
Moreover, (the Roman church) unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory — to put it very modestly —would turn to our side. Now, these fathers have written many wise and excellent things. . . . [Yet] the good things that these fathers have written they [the Roman Catholics] either do not notice, or misrepresent or pervert. . . . But we do not despise them [the church fathers]; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval.xx
ii Roman Catholic author Robert Markus notes the change that occurred in the centuries following the Christianization of the Roman Empire: “Gregory the Great, at the end of the sixth century, . . . was fond of saying, in this time of easy conformity, now that the age of persecutions was over and the Church was at peace, everyone was a Christian. There might still be some who did not carry the Christian name; but if there were such, they were marginal, and Gregory was more interested in those who did bear the name but were like the iniqui who ‘deviate from righteousness by the wickedness of their works,’ who were Christians in name only, from outward conformity. . . . Gregory’s world was the result of some two hundred years of cultural development since Augustine’s time, and we must consider this, however briefly, before considering its end-product, the society in which ‘everyone was a Christian’” (Robert A. Markus, Christianity and the Secular [Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2006], 77–78).
iii This, for example, explains the development of monasticism after the Christianization of the Roman Empire. As Douglass J. Hall explains, “In the heyday of Christendom, when virtually everyone was a Christian by birth, it was understandable that those who intended to take faith seriously should have found their Christian calling in [monastic] communities that at least gave promise of being different from the status quo” (Douglas J. Hall, Professing the Faith [Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1993], 234).
iv For more on the patristic understanding of Matthew 16:18, see William Webster, The Matthew 16 Controversy (Calvary Press, 1996).
v Martin Luther, The Table Talk of Martin Luther, trans. and ed. by William Hazlitt (London: Bell & Daldy, 1872), 203–4.
vi Norman Geisler and Josh Betancourt, Is Rome the True Church? [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008], 53–54.
vii Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 505.
viii Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo, 1.23. Medieval Source Book. Online at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-curdeus.asp#ACHAPTER XI.
ix Ibid., 1.24.
xi Ibid., 2.19.
xii Anselm of Canterbury, Liber meditationum, Consolatio, PL 158:687; cited from Thomas Oden, The Justification Reader, 58.
xiii Roman Catholic author Franz Posset recently noted the link between Bernard and Luther in his book The Real Luther (Concordia, 2011). According to Posset, “The historical Luther’s doctrine of justification is identical with the one of Saint Bernard” (127).
xiv Bernard of Clairvaux, Dedicatione Ecclesiae 5, 7 (SBO 5, 393). Cited from Else Marie Wiberg Pedersen, “The Significance of the Sola Fide and the Sola Gratia
in the Theologies of Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153) and Martin Luther (1483–1546),” online at: http://web.augsburg.edu/~mcguire/EMWPedersen_Bernard_Luther.pdf.
xv Bernard of Clairvaux, SC 61, 5 (SBO 2, 151).
xvi Ibid., SC 2, 8, (SBO I, 13).
xvii Ibid., SC 50, 1, 2, (SBO 2.79).
xviii Bernard of Clairvaux, On Grace and Free Choice, 14, 51.
xix Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs, II, Sermon 22, 8.
xx John Calvin, “Dedicatory Letter to Francis I,” Institutes, section 4.
Last installment ...how Rome lost the gospel
Yet we will be judged according to our works...
There’s “works”...and then there’s “works”. :-)
In other words, the term is used differently by different speakers/writers in the Bible. We have to understand how each is using it, otherwise we won’t understand what he’s saying.
I look at what was said about separating the sheep from the goat...” When did we see you hungry., naked, poor? What you did for the least of these , you did to me. Accounts if the judgement make no references to faith alone. But I am no exegete...I would presume that loving Jesus would translate into the desire to do well by the most vulnerable in society. To me, having faith and doing nothing...would be reprehensible. I would not want to stand before my judge and say yea, well, I didn’t do any of that...but hey I believed in you...ain’t that enough?
Godly sorrow which leads to repentance: the most significant component of salvation which has been lost by the “church” as it has softened the Gospel message, and which has led to apostasy at best and, more likely, countless false conversions.
Even if we are, since the believer who has been born again by faith in Jesus Christ, is good to go because the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to him, credited to his account.
When God looks at that believer, He sees the righteous life of Christ.
The Official Adoption of an Apostate GospelThough the Councils of Orange (in 441 and 529) condemned the synergism of semi-Pelagianism, the medieval Catholic church eventually came to define justification in synergistic terms (meaning that the church presented salvation as a cooperative effort between God and man).
In the thirteenth century, at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Roman Catholic church officially made salvation contingent on good works by establishing the seven sacraments as the means by which sinners are justified.
As Norm Geisler [full disclosure: I had Norm Geisler as a prof. Brilliant] and Josh Betancourt explain in their book, Is Rome the True Church?:
Roman Catholicism as it is known today is not the same as the Catholic Church before 1215. Even though the split between East and West occurred in 1054, most non-Catholics today would have been able to belong to the Catholic Church before the thirteenth century. Regardless of certain things the church permitted, none of its official doctrinal proclamations regarding essential salvation doctrines were contrary to orthodoxy.
While the development of Roman Catholicism from the original church was gradual, beginning in early centuries, one of the most significant turning points came in 1215, when one can see the beginning of Roman Catholicism as it is subsequently known. It is here that the seeds of what distinguishes Roman Catholicism were first pronounced as dogma. It is here that they pronounced the doctrine of transubstantiation, the primacy of the bishop of Rome, and seven sacraments.
Many consider this a key turning point in the development of Roman Catholicism in distinction from non-Catholic forms of Christianity.vi
There, fixed that statement.
>>The indulgence system allowed corrupt popes to use their religious position to extort money from spiritually desperate people on the false notion that sinners can purchase God’s grace for a price.<<
They only scaled that back. Today they still have to "merit" grace through some sort of ritual or another which of course can only be gotten through the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
Lot of words to once again bash Catholicism. The whole article is based on the false premise that “sinners are justified before God by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.”
False, because it can not be reconciled with James 2: 17 “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone”.
While Catholicism has had its problems over the years, don’t use that as justification to preach a false gospel. “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18
The subversion of Christianity through its merger with the Roman state of Constantine; saddling the teaching and propagation of the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ with the trappings of a secular empire, the invention of a “Christian” Prince (aka Pope) and surrounding him with a panoply of dukes, earls, etc, etc, etc, a putative “Christian” equivalent of the secular kingdoms of Europe, absent any model prescribed by the Bible of Christendom. And to what end; a response to which of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth or of the disciples whom he chose and charged with a preaching, teaching mission?
“False, because it can not be reconciled with James 2: 17 “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone”.
The Gospel of Grace is EASILY reconciled with James!
Saving faith always produces the life of Christ living inside us, demonstrated by good works.
Claiming to have faith, yet failing to have the life of Christ resulting in works, is not saving faith.
Come out from among them and be holy.
The sheep were separated from the goats before they stood before the throne. Amongst those goats there will be people who do good deeds civilly but have no time for God, why will they be with the goats?
I hear all the time from Baptists, Evangelicals, etc. that God does 99% of what we need for salvation but we have to exert that 1% - that faith is mostly a gift from God but there is part of it we must do, out of our own willpower and goodness and strength. You realy have to “mean business” enough, you have to be sincere enough, you have to be strong enough, you have to make yourself pure enough. But somehow a soul dead in trespasses and sins must first start to quicken itself out of its own power and God will see that and finish the job.
I just HATE when that happens!!
Really, really, REALLY hate it!!
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[b]—
18 things known from long ago.[c]
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
“In contrast, the Reformers insisted that Christ alone is the head of the church. Any other self- proclaimed “head” constituted an imposter and a fraud. “
can’t disagree with that. thanks for posting. interesting article
Man’s way of righteousness is impossible, whereas God’s way is possible.
Ever driven up a mountain? If you just point your car at the top and hit the gas, you’ll find it’s impossible. But if there’s a road that switchbacks and curves around, you can drive up it. (Not the best analogy, I’m sure, but I hope it makes the point.)
Man’s only way of righteousness is perfection in law-keeping - being able to enter a “not guilty” plea before the Judge. God’s way of righteousness is forgiveness - entering a plea of “guilty as charged” and throwing ourselves on the mercy of the Court. And if the Judge sets out conditions for our acquittal, we jump at them with eagerness and gratitude.
Does that help any?
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
I guess that to me...if one has belief...the one will want to do what he commands...takes both
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.