After the apostles died, was the gospel hopelessly lost until the Reformation?Posted on 01/24/2015 8:33:46 AM PST by RnMomof7
After the apostles died, was the gospel hopelessly lost until the Reformation?
That certainly seems to be a common assumption in some Protestant circles today. Thankfully, it is a false assumption.
I’m not entirely sure where that misconception started. But one thing I do know: it did not come from the Protestant Reformers.
The Reformers themselves (including Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and others) were convinced that their position was not only biblical, but also historical. In other words, they contended that both the apostles and the church fathers would have agreed with them on the heart of the gospel.
For example, the second-generation Lutheran reformer, Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), wrote a treatise on justification in which he defended the Protestant position by extensively using the church fathers. And John Calvin (1509-1564), in his Institutes, similarly claimed that he could easily debunk his Roman Catholic opponents using nothing but patristic sources. Here’s what he wrote:
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.
Source: John Calvin, “Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France,” The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Section 4.
How could the Reformers be so confident that their understanding of the gospel was consistent with the teachings of the ancient church? Or perhaps more to the point: What did the early church fathers have to say about the gospel of grace?
Here is an admittedly brief collection of 30 patristic quotes, centering on the reality that justification is by grace alone through faith alone. Many more could be provided. But I think you’ll be encouraged by this survey look at the gospel according to the church fathers.
(Even if you don’t read every quote, just take a moment to consider the fact that, long before Luther, the leaders of the ancient church were clearly proclaiming the gospel of grace through faith in Christ.)
1. Clement of Rome (30-100): “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.”
Source: Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 32.4.
2. Epistle to Diognetus (second century): “He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!”
Source: The Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2-5.
3. Justin Martyr (100-165) speaks of “those who repented, and who no longer were purified by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of an heifer, or by the offerings of fine flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ, and through His death.”
Source: Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 13.
4. Origen (185-254): “For God is just, and therefore he could not justify the unjust. Therefore he required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by having faith in Him those who could not be justified by their own works might be justified.”
Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.112.
5. Origen (again): “A man is justified by faith. The works of the law can make no contribution to this. Where there is no faith which might justify the believer, even if there are works of the law these are not based on the foundation of faith. Even if they are good in themselves they cannot justify the one who does them, because faith is lacking, and faith is the mark of those who are justified by God.”
Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.136.
6. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368): “Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.”
Source: Hilary, Commentary on Matthew (on Matt. 20:7)
7. Hilary of Poitiers (again): “It disturbed the scribes that sin was forgiven by a man (for they considered that Jesus Christ was only a man) and that sin was forgiven by Him whereas the Law was not able to absolve it, since faith alone justifies.”
Source: Hilary, Commentary on Matthew (on Matt. 9:3)
8. Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398) “A person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.”[31]
Source: Didymus the Blind. Commentary on James, 2:26b.
9. Basil of Caesarea (329-379): “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is justified solely by faith in Christ.”
Source: Basil, Homily on Humility, 20.3.
10. Jerome (347–420): “We are saved by grace rather than works, for we can give God nothing in return for what he has bestowed on us.”
Source: Jerome, Epistle to the Ephesians, 1.2.1.
11. John Chrysostom (349-407): “For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.”
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, 4.2.9.
12. John Chrysostom (again): “But what is the ‘law of faith?’ It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.”
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 7.27.
13. John Chrysostom (again): “God allowed his Son to suffer as if a condemned sinner, so that we might be delivered from the penalty of our sins. This is God’s righteousness, that we are not justified by works (for then they would have to be perfect, which is impossible), but by grace, in which case all our sin is removed.”
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, 11.5.
14. John Chrysostom (again): “Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. ‘And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith.’ (v. 9.) From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those (objectors); this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision.”
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts, 32 (regarding Acts 15:1)
15. John Chrysostom (again): “What then was it that was thought incredible? That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor. Upon this head accordingly Paul has discoursed at length in his Epistle to the Romans, and here again at length. “This is a faithful saying,” he says, “and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, 4.1.
16. John Chrysostom (again): “”For it is most of all apparent among the Gentiles, as he also says elsewhere, ‘And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy.’ (Romans 15:9.) For the great glory of this mystery is apparent among others also, but much more among these. For, on a sudden, to have brought men more senseless than stones to the dignity of Angels, simply through bare words, and faith alone, without any laboriousness, is indeed glory and riches of mystery: just as if one were to take a dog, quite consumed with hunger and the mange, foul, and loathsome to see, and not so much as able to move, but lying cast out, and make him all at once into a man, and to display him upon the royal throne.”
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Colossians, 5.2.
17. John Chrysostom (again): “Now since the Jews kept turning over and over the fact, that the Patriarch, and friend of God, was the first to receive circumcision, he wishes to show, that it was by faith that he too was justified. And this was quite a vantage ground to insist upon. For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light.”
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 8.1.
18. Augustine (354-430): “If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.”
Source: Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 2-4.
19. Augustine (again): “When someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.”
Source: Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 6-7.
20. Ambrosiaster (fourth century): “God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins.”
Source: Ambrosiaster, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:4.
21. Ambrosiaster (again): “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.”
Source: Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans 3:24.
22. Ambrosiaster (again): “Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast basing themselves on the law and claiming to be of the race of Abraham, seeing that no one is justified before God except by faith.”
Source: Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans 3:27.
23. Ambrosiaster (again): “God gave what he promised in order to be revealed as righteous. For he had promised that he would justify those who believe in Christ, as he says in Habakkuk: ‘The righteous will live by faith in me’ (Hab. 2:4). Whoever has faith in God and Christ is righteous.”
Source: Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Paul’s Epistles; CSEL 81 ad loc.
24. Marius Victorinus (fourth century): “The fact that you Ephesians are saved is not something that comes from yourselves. It is the gift of God. It is not from your works, but it is God’s grace and God’s gift, not from anything you have deserved. … We did not receive things by our own merit but by the grace and goodness of God.”
Source: Marius Victorinus, Epistle to the Ephesians, 1.2.9.
25. Prosper of Aquitaine (390–455): “And just as there are no crimes so detestable that they can prevent the gift of grace, so too there can be no works so eminent that they are owed in condign [deserved] judgment that which is given freely. Would it not be a debasement of redemption in Christ’s blood, and would not God’s mercy be made secondary to human works, if justification, which is through grace, were owed in view of preceding merits, so that it were not the gift of a Donor, but the wages of a laborer?”
Source: Prosper of Acquitaine, Call of All Nations, 1.17
26. Theodoret of Cyrus (393–457): “The Lord Christ is both God and the mercy seat, both the priest and the lamb, and he performed the work of our salvation by his blood, demanding only faith from us.”
Source: Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans; PG 82 ad loc.
27. Theodoret of Cyrus (again): “All we bring to grace is our faith. But even in this faith, divine grace itself has become our enabler. For [Paul] adds, ‘And this is not of yourselves but it is a gift of God; not of works, lest anyone should boast’ (Eph. 2:8–9). It is not of our own accord that we have believed, but we have come to belief after having been called; and even when we had come to believe, He did not require of us purity of life, but approving mere faith, God bestowed on us forgiveness of sins”
Source: Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretation of the Fourteen Epistles of Paul; FEF 3:248–49, sec. 2163.
28. Cyril of Alexandria (412-444): “For we are justified by faith, not by works of the law, as Scripture says. By faith in whom, then, are we justified? Is it not in Him who suffered death according to the flesh for our sake? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ?”
Source: Cyril of Alexandria, Against Nestorius, 3.62
29. Fulgentius (462–533): “The blessed Paul argues that we are saved by faith, which he declares to be not from us but a gift from God. Thus there cannot possibly be true salvation where there is no true faith, and, since this faith is divinely enabled, it is without doubt bestowed by his free generosity. Where there is true belief through true faith, true salvation certainly accompanies it. Anyone who departs from true faith will not possess the grace of true salvation.”
Source: Fulgentius, On the Incarnation, 1; CCL 91:313.
30. Bede (673-735): “Although the apostle Paul preached that we are justified by faith without works, those who understand by this that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith, have made a great mistake. James here expounds how Paul’s words ought to be understood. This is why he uses the example of Abraham, whom Paul also used as an example of faith, to show that the patriarch also performed good works in the light of his faith. It is therefore wrong to interpret Paul in such a way as to suggest that it did not matter whether Abraham put his faith into practice or not. What Paul meant was that no one obtains the gift of justification on the basis of merits derived from works performed beforehand, because the gift of justification comes only from faith.”
Source: Cited from the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ed. Gerald Bray), NT, vol. 11, p. 31.
>>This narrows such candidates to the Catholic and Orthodox churches already.<<<p
No, it does not. It’s only by the words of those organizations that they believe themselves to be the interpreters of scripture. Scripture itself show them to be wrong. Scripture says that all true believers have the Holy Spirit as a teacher and counsellor. That and the fact that the Catholic Church relies on proven spurious documentation is cause enough to regard them in error. Add to that the belief in the assumption of Mary which didn’t even surface until 100s of years after the passing of the apostles and it’s easy to see they are NOT the “church” Christ was talking about.
You are referring to this quote from your link:
"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)
Augustine is not speaking here literally of the Eucharist, but of Christ, as he says in other places that the symbol only bares similarities with the real thing, but is not the real thing. He did not believe in transubstantiation. He held to suprasubstantiation, that Christ is spiritually present in the Lord's Supper within the faith of the believer; nor did he hold that the act of eating the symbol was what saves, but rather whoever believes in Christ is saved, even before eating or drinking anything:
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
The eucharist, for Augustine, was a spiritual communion with Christ which calls us to cherish unity with the body (for we also are the "bread and wine"), to appreciate Christ's sacrifice and to look towards heaven for our future blessings.
I have a large number of quotations to back every statement I have made here up, if you ask me to.
You don't have to use Sola Scriptura any more then Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, or any other religion. Just don't claim to be the ekklesia that Christ instituted and the apostles taught.
Cynical Bear's interpretation of Scripture itself show them to be wrong.
Fixed it for you. You're welcome.
Great work!
Bible already proves it...It's not in there...And if it happened, it would be in there...And if you want to claim it happened after the bible was written, Mary would have been long dead of old age...
Second, you would have to prove that the assumption had happened already by the time Galatians was written. Many think it did not. Third, you would have to prove the assumption itself rather than the authority to teach it is part of the Gospel.
We don't have to prove anything...We don't have to prove Mary was not assumed to heaven any more than we have to prove that Jesus was not a homosexual...
And we know that because Jesus preached against homosexuality and in Jesus there was no sin...
And we know Mary was not assumed to heaven because it is appointed for all men/women to die and then the judgment...And in the two cases that were the exception to the rule, God told us about it...
How about you prove that John the Baptist did not communicate with aliens from the Orion Constellation...Or how about prove that the Apostle Paul did not wear Rebok shoes...
The reality is, one of you guys has to prove that Mary did get assumed to heaven for there to be any legitimacy...
Well by all means post them here...It will be the first the world has ever seen them...
After the apostles died, was the gospel hopelessly lost until the Reformation?
From your selections (emphasis added):
“One person has defined Church History as the story of the loss and recovery of the Gospel. …It was apparent that the Gospel was nearly lost during the times of the Middle Ages.”
“Tragically, this Patristic understanding was lost during the Medieval times and only recovered by Martin Luther and others at the time of the Reformation… As the study of Church History is the study of the loss and recovery of the Gospel…”
Your analysis is spot-on if the apostles had lived until the middle ages.
“I don’t have to prove the apostles did not teach the assumption of Mary.”
Sure you do. Since orthodox Christians before Protestantism reared its ugly heretical head believed it, yes, you do.
“I don’t believe she was.”
What you believe on the matter isn’t the issue.
“There is nothing in scripture that says I need to believe that to be part of the ekklesia of Christ.”
There’s nothing in the Bible about sola scriptura yet you believe that.
“The Catholic Church says Catholics must believe that. It is therefore the responsibility of the Catholic Church to show the apostles taught that the assumption of Mary is necessary.”
Not using sola scriptura - that’s a Protestant heresy.
“Why do I need to prove that? Nothing in Matthew is contradicted in any of the other books.”
Nothing in scripture contradicts the assumption of Mary either. Also, YOU could write a book that is not contradicted by scripture. Does that mean it is inspired?
“If you can show where Matthew contradicts any of the other writers let me know and we can discuss it.”
So, you will fail - as expected of course - to show that Matthew wrote an inspired gospel. Thus, sola scriptura logically falls apart.
“Would you do the same for let’s say the book of Tobit?”
Do what?
“So show where the Catholic Church refutes what is in it.”
Read up on the subject. And why would the Church even notice one publication in America from 1909?
“Mormans and Muslims have a sola scriptura belief? Seriously?”
Much as Protestants profess - with the usual caveat that that shifts to completely subjective selectivity whenever they feel like. Protestants act the same way. Ask any Protestant to show you even one verse that says Matthew ever wrote an inspired gospel and suddenly he will run to any other issue they can thrown in the conversation.
No interpretation needed. Paul states clearly in scripture that if it wasn’t taught by them the teachings was to be considered accursed. The Catholic Church teaches many things they can’t prove the apostles taught.
Not my error.. but the error of an RC poster that said the whole bible was the gospel.. So tell me what is the gospel that Jesus preached ?
YEP
“Like I said. Show any errors in Matthew and we will talk about it.”
No, show it is inspired. A document can have no errors and still not be inspired.
“But you need to do the same with Tobit.”
Nope. I wouldn’t need to do it for any book of the Bible. You need to stand by sola scriptura, however, if you’re going to preach it here and show where the Bible says Matthew wrote a gospel. See, in the end, all that is possible is that Protestants believe in a false doctrine (sola scriptura) which is unworkable and self-refuting and they are hypocrites because they insist others use sola scriptura while they themselves believe in numerous things not proved by scripture (e.g. the Matthew wrote an inspired book).
“Please show where anyone made the claim that any verse condemns abortion by name please.”
Are you saying the Bible does not condemn abortion? Do you condemn abortion? If so, where in the Bible is abortion condemned by name for you believe in sola scriptura you say?
That wasn't "orthodox" Christians. Catholicism is a perversion of what "orthodox" Christians believed. The apostles were the "orthodox" Christians. The Catholic Church has added to and polluted what they taught.
Where to start.. if all scripture is not true Rome has a problem because it claims its authority from it..
Making doctrine from the silence of scripture is dangerous.. that how cults are born ... maybe Scientology is right after all scripture does not say Jesus was NOT a space alien..and the womb of Mary was actually a space ship..
How do you discern spiritual truth from lies??
“Your analysis is spot-on if the apostles had lived until the middle ages.”
No, my “analysis” (I made none actually) is just spot on. Period.
“The Reformation’s Recovery of the Gospel” http://www.credomag.com/2011/11/04/the-reformations-recovery-of-the-gospel/
Mormons:
http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/restoration
“The myth of a Protestant “recovery” of the Gospel was strong in our church. “http://chnetwork.org/2012/02/a-protestant-historian-discovers-the-catholic-church-conversion-story-of-a-david-anders-ph-d/
No they do not ... but Rome has told them it is bad..
What an interesting comment. Matthew is scripture and would have to contradict other scripture show that it wasn't. Sola Scriptura in no way "falls apart" as Sola Scriptura refers to books like Matthew.
That is correct.. there was no “doctrine” on that at that time ..
“That wasn’t “orthodox” Christians.”
Yes, it was.
“Catholicism is a perversion of what “orthodox” Christians believed.”
No. Protestantism is a perversion of orthodoxy. That’s why no one ever heard of it until almost 1500 after Christianity began.
“The apostles were the “orthodox” Christians.”
The first ones. They passed on the orthodox faith to us. Your religious ancestors, all heretical Protestants, gave up that faith and embraced the new beliefs no one taught before in orthodoxy. That’s why even Protestants like Alister E. McGrath can talk about a novum being introduced to soteriology by Luther.
“The Catholic Church has added to and polluted what they taught.”
No. Protestants created a new gospel that is automatically false and have attacked the true faith ever since.
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.