The Gospel According to the Church Fathers

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.”

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!”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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]

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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?”

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?”

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.”

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.

Haha ok man, so we are going to keep going around in circles regarding "'eat' Christ 'already' even before readying teeth and stomach"? No thanks.

Well, if you avoid it, you leave me with my chiefest weapon. Because if you demand that Augustine believes that the eating of the eucharist and the eating of Christ spiritually are one in the same thing, or one is the result of the other, "through" another, then you must somehow explain why Augustine asks "Why ready teeth and stomach? Believe and you have eaten already." This proves that Augustine's teachings on the Lord's Supper, and his teachings on salvation, are not to be conflated, and are as I have defined them.

Again, YES we receive Christ in the Eucharist through faith, which is also why Augustine says that those who DON'T believe eat their own judgment in the Eucharist! (another Catholic teaching!) Here's something to chew on (no pun intended): how can someone who has no faith "eat judgment upon themselves", as Augustine says, if the Eucharist itself is of no effect?

It is also a Reformed teaching, and therefore does not contradict our position:

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.[14] VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries,[15] or be admitted thereunto.[16]

From "Of the Lord's Supper", Chapter XXIX of the Westminster Confession: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

This mirrors very closely what Augustine says himself, who also denies that they are eating Christ, though they press the Eucharist to their lips:

"'He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.' This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Matthew 5:8" (Augustine, Tractate 26)

RnMom, I have seen this mud argument before. It appears Vlad is using Jesus' use of mud as a way to keep Tobit in the canon, i.e., saying in effect that Tobit's description of a remedy using odds and ends of fish does not disqualify Tobit as canonical because Jesus used mud in John.

This would be sort of like saying that because Jesus used a material substance in His healing of the blind man, therefore it's OK to use a magic talisman to control evil spirits. This is a non sequitur of the most extreme sort. Jesus is the Creator. He made man out of mud. Of course God is fine with using material things for his creative work. But that does not create a blank check to accept any sort of superstitious error that has crept in. Material is good, but not all uses of material are therefore good. The conclusion doesn't answer to the premise.

Specifically, the Tobit remedy is designed to repel a demon who keeps killing the men who marry a woman named Sarah. Watch this closely. It is the odor of the burning fish parts that supposedly repels the demon. This is what you call a category error. To what order of being do demons belong? Spiritual, or physical? If they are physical, why does every Gospel example of Jesus or His disciples ejecting them done not with a talisman of some sort but by the direct word of divine authority? Pagan magic assumes a connectedness between special objects and the demonic world. But this is nothing but a primitive misconception of the nature of these beings, painfully sub-Christian, aided and abetted by some strands of rabbinic thought.

This is one of the reasons Jesus' exorcism ministry was so completely revolutionary. He understood exactly what they were and how best to deal with them. And He conferred that authority on His disciples (and on all who call on His aid in truth), and they too treat these beings. not to foul fish odors, but to the relentless power of Jesus' authority, for it is always in His name that this beings are removed from their hosts.

So in true Scripture, authored by the Holy Spirit, there are no such ontological errors. In rabbinic fairy tales, sure, why not? Just don't mix the two up.

And getting back to the mud, I have always seen that as Jesus doing even more than merely setting aside the fairy tales about the law made up by the corrupted magisterium of His day. He is recapitulating His role as our Creator, in a very striking way asserting the same power as God in creating Adam. Possibly the man born blind was missing some or all of his eye structure, optic nerve, etc. No man could heal that, nor the genetic defect that may have led to it. But with Jesus we are dealing with the Creator Himself, and nothing is impossible to Him, not even recreating an eye from mud.

And inasmuch as He is our Creator, it is His model for casting out demons we should take seriously. Not Tobit's fairy tales. I can verify that these evil beings do take flight at the mention of Jesus' name, made in faith believing, even when the person invoking that name is no one of any significance. And no foul fish odors need be involved, just as in the Gospels. There is a difference between uninspired fiction and the word of God, and the Ecclesia will always be able to smell the difference between the two, because His sheep hear His voice.

Peace,

SR

Excuse me, but the portion you have put in bold says exactly "although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth".

The wicked man therefore does not "eat" Jesus' body and blood in the Eucharist precisely because he doesn't believe! One must have faith first (as Augustine says) before one can receive Christ. Once one has faith, then one receives Christ.

The wicked has no faith, therefore, partaking of the Sacrament is, not only no effect, but actually damns the man, because it's defying the Word of God (Jesus, the Body of Christ) in the Eucharist.

I don't know how else I can put it.

Faith first in Jesus is what's required. In fact, this flows from how I didn't "avoid" your claim about "'eating' Christ 'already' even before readying teeth and stomach", it's actually you who have avoided answering my reply, again, located here: http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3250227/posts?page=146#146

I said again, "Here then we can clearly see the context that St. Augustine is speaking in, which is that first, belief in Jesus is required for Salvation! When the Saint speaks "believe, and you have eaten already", he is not speaking about the Eucharist, rather, what Augustine is saying here is that the Jews must seek after Jesus first, believe in Him first, not seeking after any carnal "bread" that just filled their bellies. Remember, they (the crowd) were just filled by the miracle of the loaves and the fishes at this time, and Jesus knew that they were following Him around because they sought a man who would always do this for them (John 6:26). "

So belief in Him is required first, and to stress the importance of this belief, this faith in Christ that is all important, Augustine said "believe, and you have eaten already" meaning, do not even seek after food itself to fill the belly before seeking Christ Himself, in other words Faith in Christ is more important than even food, or, do not seek Christ to be some filler of your belly, to give you "bread" to fill your belly and keep you "alive" here on earth, rather He will give us Bread that will give us eternal life if you believe in Him first. And that is what is most important, not food, but Christ. So "believe in Him, and you have eaten already"

This is the proper context of that passage from Tractate 25 (paragraph 12), which then gives the proper context of Tractate 26, and beyond.

First believe in Christ, then you can receive the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. If you don't believe, you not only don't receive Christ (don't 'eat' Christ as Augustine puts it), but you also "eat and drink the sacrament" (again a symbol and also that which it symbolizes) "of so great a thing to [your] own judgment" Tractate 26, paragraph 18.

Anyone should really read all of the tractates for themselves, and really wonder: Does this man sound more like a Catholic, or a Protestant.

Here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701.htm

It's difficult to discern what you are saying here. Augustine is not speaking of any bread, but of the bread that comes down from heaven (Himself), which is eaten and drank by faith without any physical eating. If Christ is speaking of how it is we eat him, and if eating the eucharist is eating Him (as you hold), and is necessary to receive Him as it is "through" it that we receive Him, then this is problematic for you:

“Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. (12) What then did the Lord answer to such murmurers? Murmur not among yourselves. As if He said, I know why you are not hungry, and do not understand nor seek after this bread. Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him. Noble excellence of grace! No man comes unless drawn. There is whom He draws, and there is whom He draws not; why He draws one and draws not another, do not desire to judge, if you desire not to err.” (Augustine, Tractate 26)

Therefore it is not true that Augustine is saying "do not even seek after food itself to fill the belly before seeking Christ Himself," but is explaining how it is that we eat Christ. And this is accomplished not through the eucharist, but through faith "without teeth and stomach." Thus the eating of Christ for salvation through faith is distinct from the eating of the Lord's Supper.

I also like how Augustine gives the Calvinistic reading of the verses therein, and thus denies universal grace.

Thank you for the link.

In summary the quoted fathers speak of how faith and works of righteousness cannot be separated; it is an interwoven cloth. Amazingly the reformers claimed the same.

What one must observe is what was the understanding of the fathers and even the reformers on the matter?

We have some Catholics who claim the works of good deeds and righteousness is of our own doing and such ‘part’ of our justification. The council of Orange struck that semi pelagian idea down.

Let’s check out what is said in scriptures.

When Nicodemus came to Jesus by night he got quite an education on the OT scriptures, the TaNaKh. Here’s the discourse:

John 3 King James Version (KJV)

3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.(KJV)

Nicodemus was called “the teacher” of Israel yet he grasped for understanding Christ’s discourse. Why? It seems the teacher of Israel gained his understanding from the law of men and not God’s Law. Nicodemus should have known the following as Christ used exact images from this:

Ezekiel 36 King James Version (KJV)

22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.

23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.(KJV)

Verse 25-27 above. Sounds familiar. The above and Psalm 51 and many others should have been on the mind of Nicodemus. Instead Nicodemus was engaged in cleaning plates, who or what not to touch etc.

How many “I dos” and “I wills” do we see in Ezekiel 36 above? All of which come from the mouth of YHWH.

Salvation, from the words of God, belongs to Him. He owns it and there is nothing in the “formula” we ‘do’. Because...

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6)

We had nothing to do with our earthly conception (we can ask our parents about that); So we are born again of the Spirit and not a work of our hands.

In closing Paul has this to say reference our regeneration:

2 Corinthians 5 King James Version (KJV)

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.(KJV)

Therefore, the righteousness the apostles and even the church fathers wrote about is the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.

Amazing that you read the portion in bold exactly opposite the way I do. It must be because again, your interpretation of "believe, and you have eaten already" is necessarily correct (in your opinion) and defines how Augustine means "eat" every time he uses that verb.

"For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. "

I certainly read this as "Believing in him is to eat the living bread" or "By eating the living bread you are believing in him". There is nothing to prevent me from reading it that way, other than IF what you say about "believe and you have eaten already" is true.

"9. And now addressing the few that remained: Then said Jesus to the twelve (namely, those twelve who remained), Will ye also, said He, go away? Not even Judas departed. But it was already manifest to the Lord why he remained: to us he was made manifest afterwards. Peter answered in behalf of all, one for many, unity for the collective whole: Then Simon Peter answered Him, Lord, to whom shall we go? You drive us from You; give us Your other self. To whom shall we go? If we abandon You, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. See how Peter, by the gift of God and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, understood Him. How other than because he believed? You have the words of eternal life. For You have eternal life in the ministration of Your body and blood. And we have believed and have known. Not have known and believed, but believed and known. For we believed in order to know; for if we wanted to know first, and then to believe, we should not be able either to know or to believe. What have we believed and known? That You are Christ, the Son of God; that is, that You are that very eternal life, and that You give in Your flesh and blood only that which You are.

Tractate 27, para 9, here. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm

Like I said, everyone should read ALL his tractates and ask themselves "Does he sound more Catholic or Protestant here?"

I see no reason to accept your interpretation of "eat and you have believed already". That's the linchpin of your entire assertion about Augustine (and his teachings on the Eucharist). I see no reason to accept it because not only does reading more of Augustine than the quote "believe and you have eaten already" show more than a passing importance to the Eucharist, but even more importantly I don't recognize your authority to claim "believe and you have eaten already" defines all of what Augustine means about eating the sacrament.

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.