One More Time on the “Onlys” of the Reformation

Quotes from the Early Fathers of the Church on the “onlys” of the Gospel:

Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man:

If they, then, bear the delay who by faith only and by hope saw the good things “afar off” and “embraced them(2),” as the apostle bears witness, placing their certainty of the enjoyment of the things for which they hoped in the fact that they “judged Him faithful Who has promised(3),” what ought most of us to do, who have not, it may be, a hold upon the better hope from the character of our lives?

 

Chrysostom: Homilies on 2 Cor:

“Sound judgment.” And what can it be to have “a sound judgment?” To enjoy the health that pertaineth to the soul: for he that is held down by wicked lusts and dazzled(10) with present things, never can be sound, that is, healthy. But as one who is diseased lusteth even after things which are unfit for him, so also doth he. “And a virtuous mode of life,” for the doctrines need a mode of life [answerable]. Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it. For, what though thou be justified(11): yet is it of faith only. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works.

 

Homily, Acts 15:1

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. For indeed they do not say all this only by way of apology for the Gentiles, but to teach (the Jewish believers) also to abandon the Law. However, at present this is not said. “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples?”

 

Homily, Romans 3:

For if even before this, the circumcision was made uncircumcision, much rather was it now, since it is cast out from both periods. But after saying that “it was excluded,” he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? “By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. 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,(1) and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. And in saying this he attempts to bring the Jew who has believed to act with moderation, and to calm him that hath not believed, in such way as to draw him on to his own view. For he that has been saved, if he be high-minded in that he abides by the Law, will be told that he himself has stopped his own mouth, himself has accused himself, himself has renounced claims to his own salvation, and has excluded boasting. But he that hath not believed again, being humbled by these same means, will be capable of being brought over to the faith. Do you see how great faith’s preeminence is? How it hath removed us from the former things, not even allowing us to boast of them?

 

Homily, Romans 4:

Ver. 2. “By Whom also we have access,” he says, “by faith unto this grace. (7 Mss. add, unto, etc.)

If then He hath brought us near to Himself, when we were far off, much more will He keep us now that we are near. And let me beg you to consider how he everywhere sets down these two points; His part, and our part. On His part, however, there be things varied and numerous and diverse. For He died for us, and farther reconciled us, and brought us to Himself, and gave us grace unspeakable. But we brought faith only as our contribution. And so he says,” “by faith, unto this grace” What grace is this? tell me. It is the being counted worthy of the knowledge of God, the being forced from error, the coming to a knowledge of the Truth, the obtaining of all the blessings that come through Baptism.

 

Augustine, On Faith, Hope, and Love, ch 67:

It is believed, moreover, by some, that men who do not abandon the name of Christ, and who have been baptized in the Church by His baptism, and who have never been cut off from the Church by any schism or heresy, though they should live in the grossest sin and never either wash it away in penitence nor redeem it by almsgiving, but persevere in it persistently to the last day of their lives, shall be saved by fire; that is, that although they shall suffer a punishment by fire, lasting for a time proportionate to the magnitude of their crimes and misdeeds, they shall not be punished with everlasting fire. But those who believe this, and yet are Catholics, seem to me to be led astray by a kind of benevolent feeling natural to humanity. For Holy Scripture, when consulted, gives a very different answer. I have written a book on this subject, entitled Of Faith and Works, in which, to the best of my ability, God assisting me, I have shown from Scripture, that the faith which saves us is that which the Apostle Paul clearly enough describes when he says: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.”(2) But if it worketh evil, and not good, then without doubt, as the Apostle James says, “it is dead, being alone.”(3) The same apostle says again, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?”(4) And further, if a wicked man shall be saved by fire on account of his faith alone, and if this is what the blessed Apostle Paul means when he says, “But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire;”(5) then faith without works can save a man, and what his fellow-apostle James says must be false. And that must be false which Paul himself says in another place: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners; shall inherit the kingdom of God.”(6) For if those who persevere in these wicked courses shall nevertheless be saved on account of their faith in Christ, how can it be true that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God?

 

Chrysostom, 1 Timothy:

As the Jews were chiefly attracted by this, he persuades them not (2) to give heed to the law, since they could not attain salvation by it without faith. Against this he contends; for it seemed to them incredible, that a man who had misspent all his former life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his faith alone. On this account he says, “It is a saying to be believed.” But some not only disbelieved but even objected, as the Greeks do now.

 

Chrysostom, Homily on 1 Tim 5:8:

Then there is thanksgiving, and great glory, and joy, every one praying that such may be his own end, that so his own combat may terminate, and he may rest from his labor and struggles, and may see Christ. And if any is sick, instead of tears and lamentations they have recourse to prayers. Often not the care of physicians, but faith alone relieves the sick.

 

Chrysostom, Homily on Eph 2:11-12:

For he makes a wide distinction between “commandments” and “ordinances.” He either then means “faith,” calling that an “ordinance,” (for by faith alone He saved us,) or he means “precept,” such as Christ gave, when He said, “But I say unto you, that ye are not to be angry at all.” (Matt. v: 22.) That is to say, “If thou shalt believe that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. x: 6-9.) And again, “The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart. Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven, or who shall descend into the abyss?” or, who hath “brought. Him again from the dead?” Instead of a certain manner of life, He brought in faith. For that He might not save us to no purpose, He both Himself underwent the penalty, and also required of men the faith that is by doctrines.

 

Theodoret of Cyrus, Letters:

All this I say not for the sake of boasting, but because I am forced to defend myself. It is not the fame of my sermons to which I am calling attention; it is their orthodoxy alone. Even the great teacher of the world who is wont to style himself last of saints and first of sinners, that he might stop the mouths of liars was compelled to set forth a list of his own labours; and in shewing that this account of his sufferings was of necessity, not of free will, he added “I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me.”(2) I own myself wretched—aye thrice wretched. I am guilty of many errors. Through faith alone I look for finding some mercy in the day of the Lord’s appearing. I wish and I pray that I may follow the footprints of the holy Fathers, and I earnestly desire to keep undefiled the evangelic teaching which was in sum delivered to us by the holy Fathers assembled in council at the Bithynian Nicaea. I believe that there is one God the Father and one Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father:(1) so also that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, brightness of His glory and express image of the Father’s person,(2) on account of man’s salvation, incarnate and made man and born of Mary the Virgin in the flesh. For so are we taught by the wise Paul “Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen,”(3) and again “Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness.”(4) On this account we also call the holy Virgin “Theotokos,”(5) and deem those who object to this appellation to be alienated from true religion.

 

Click the next line (“Reformation Solas in the Fathers of the Church” for more quotes)

Reformation Solas in the Fathers of the Church (May have to click this line more than once.)

(THE END)

Lordship Salvation Again

by Fred Chay, Ph.D. and John P. Correia, M.Div., The Faith that Saves: Nature of Faith in the New Testament

It is almost impossible to believe that people are still promoting the horrible theology that Christ can be your savior without being your Lord. Mostly, that theology either comes directly from Dallas Theological Seminary or indirectly, from those who have imbibed from DTS.

In 2008 the two authors above co-wrote the above book.  It is no surprise that Chay is a graduate of DTS, the seminary that is most supportive of such nonsense. I’m also a graduate of DTS, but it did not take me long to see through their antinomianism, though when I was there the professors were divided over the issue. One of the things that set me straight was the fact that no one in the whole history of the Church has espoused such an idea, even though those who write for antinomianism try to claim the Reformers. But no one in the theological lineage of the Reformers agrees with their interpretation of them, such as Presbyterianism (Westminster Confession of Faith), Lutheranism (Formula of Concord), Anglicanism (of which I’m a part, 39 Articles), and so on. Of course, another evidence that put the nail in the coffin for me was Holy Scripture. The book I’m reviewing is full of passages and attempted exegesis, but so much of it is wrong.

The idea promoted at DTS was (is?) that all theological problems can be solved by parsing this verb or diagramming that sentence. Before someone objects, I love the exegesis of Holy Scripture more than anything, and I teach both Hebrew and Greek in the seminary where I’m the dean. But the Sola Scriptura doctrine proclaimed by the Protestant Reformers did not mean to them “only the Bible and me,” but the Bible is the only infallible authority, but certainly not the only authority. As our own 39 Articles states,

  • Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary for salvation. (Art 6).
  • The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of Salvation. (Art 20)
  • We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of Comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification. (Art 10, emphasis added. Moreover, if one reads the Homily of Justification, or Salvation, as it is called elsewhere, it will be abundantly clear that true faith “necessarily” has works)

Notice that the Articles say that we are justified by faith only. But the 39 Articles also have no problem in saying:

  • Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet they are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and so spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit. (Art 12, emphasis added)

Here is the corner they have painted themselves into, and why they always say we must not rely on past theology, only exegesis. Since they cannot find themselves in the history of the Church, they try to negate it. But I’m not willing to grant them that proviso, for each discipline of life builds on the shoulders of its predecessors. Thus, contra the whole history of the church, especially such men as Augustine, Chrysostom, Cappadocian fathers, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, no one has taught that faith is only mental assent. Charles Ryrie, former head of theology department at DTS,  noted this long ago in his book, Balancing the Christian Life, when he stated that Reformed writers A. W. Pink and J. I. Packer were preaching a false Gospel (p. 169) because they believed that Jesus must be Lord to be Savior. Incredible arrogance.

So we have a very small movement that began in the later 1800s, was codified in dispensationalism in the DTS doctrinal statement, which dispensationalism is basically confined to the USA with some pockets outside the USA. They take the arrogant stand that the whole church has been wrong about saving faith, which, I suppose, means that no one has been a Christian until Scofield and Chafer, and that the majority of Christians today are wrong. At the Last Day judgment, these will not go to heaven: Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Pentecostals (some might make it, but given their Arminianism, some would opt for man’s sovereignty to choose, so likewise Church of God and Assemblies of God), etc. If one beings in the mid 1800s (to be charitable) and goes back to the beginning of the apostles, there were no Christians and everyone was wrong. Beginning in the late 1800s (to be more realistic), only a few people who believe that faith is mental assent are Christians. None before the late 1800s and perhaps only ten percent since then. That is either unbelievable arrogance or unbelievable naivety. I would not want to be in the position of being the only one right.

It is telling that no one outside dispensationalism holds that antinomian system, and it only began in the higher life movement, promoted strongly by the two founders of DTS, C. I. Scofield (I’ve been teased for having the same two first initials!) and Lewis Sperry Chafer. Both men taught the higher life view, that there are two kinds of Christians, some who decide to go on with the Lord and have works, and those who are satisfied with their sins. That theology is fossilized in the DTS doctrinal statement where they say that Christians who are once saved are always saved with or without perseverance of the saints, with or without the fruit of good words. That is the problem of having a seminary established by two theologically ignorant men, neither of whom had any formal theological training. Scofield had been an attorney, though not really making a career of it, divorced his wife, and did Bible conferences. Chafer was a musician who drank heavenly, by his own admission, at the fount of Scofield, claiming Scofield as his mentor. (See the frontage of his work, Grace, published in 1922 and dedicated to Scofield.) One should read B. B. Warfield’s sound critique of Chafer’s He That Is Spiritual, also on this blog.

In a book review, I’m not going to try to refute the same old arguments I’ve heard for almost 40 years, but if you want to read the book I wrote, here is the blurb for my Lordship Salvation: The Only Kind There is:

  • Rev. Dr. Curtis I. Crenshaw wrote LORDSHIP SALVATION: THE ONLY KIND THERE IS as an answer to Jody Dillow’s REIGN OF SERVANT KINGS. The foreword was written by John H. Gerstner, Ph.D. It is a little over 200 pages of well documented analysis and exegetical details. DON’T MISS THE APPENDIXES: (1) Handling some texts (John 15, “abiding” in John); (2) B. B. Warfield’s critique of Chafer (reprinted); (3) many quotes from the Bible against antinomianism; (4) quotes from the early fathers and the Reformation confessions against antinomianism.

You may look at the book here.   Amen.