Is Sola Fide (Faith Alone) a Legitimate Development of Patristic and Augustinian Soteriology?

Heresy can only be defined as the apostles and Church Fathers defined it, according to the ancient principle of apostolic succession. In a nutshell, heresy is that which has not been passed down from the beginning, from the apostles and our Lord Jesus. If something is novel and cannot be traced back, it is heresy, and to be utterly re ected, according to !t. "aul in particular. #ll other definitions are ultimately circular$ % &hat is heresy' ( )hat which is false and wrong according to the *ible +i.e., as interpreted by Calvin,Luther,whomever% #nd where do they get their authority to state that' ( From .od, but they would trace their beliefs to the early Fathers, particularly !t. #ugustine. % *ut Catholics also trace their beliefs from !t. #ugustine. &ho is correct' ( If you look at #ugustine/s teachings, you will find that the 0eformed are his true legatees. #pplying this oft1stated "rotestant principle, I then appeal to "rotestant scholars #lister 2c.rath and 3orman .eisler, with regard to the historical basis of sola fide +faith alone and e4trinsic, imputed ustification-, one of the pillars of the "rotestant 0eformation$ &hereas #ugustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in ustification, 2elanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For #ugustine, / ustifying righteousness/ is imparted5 for 2elanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. 2elanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former / ustification/ and the latter /sanctification/ or /regeneration./ For #ugustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . . )he importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of #ugustine onwards, ustification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. 2elanchthon/s concept of forensic ustification diverged radically from this. #s it was taken up by virtually all the ma or reformers subse6uently, it came to represent a standard difference between "rotestant and 0oman Catholic from then on . . . )he Council of )rent . . . reaffirmed the views of #ugustine on the nature of ustification . . . the concept of forensic ustification actually represents a development in Luther/s thought . . . .

With Emphasis on St. Augustine's Views on Predestination and Apostolic Succession

)rent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to #ugustine, which saw ustification as comprising both an event and a process . . . +0eformation )hought$ #n Introduction, 7nd ed., .rand 0apids, 2I$ *aker *ook House, 899:, 8;<18;9, 88=5 emphasis in originalCouldn/t have said it better myself> )his spectacularly confirms that sola fide was a novelty and corruption, and that infused, intrinsic ustification was the ongoing tradition, and that of !t. #ugustine, supposedly the great forebear of Luther/s ?faith alone.? 3orman .eisler makes the e4act same point$ . . . one can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness +or forensic ustificationis an essential part of the true gospel. @therwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle "aul and the 0eformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness +or forensic ustification- during that period> . . . . . For #ugustine, ustification included both the beginnings of one/s righteousness before .od and its subse6uent perfection 1 the event and the process. &hat later became the 0eformation concept of /sanctification/ then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of ustification. #lthough he believed that .od initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that #ugustine held to the concept of /forensic/ ustification. )his understanding of ustification is a later development of the 0eformation . . . . . . a feature in #ugustinianism which "rotestants will no doubt find interesting is that .od may regenerate a person without causing that one to finally persevere A City of .od, 8;.<B . . . #ugustine does not deny the freedom of the human will . . . He resisted the notion of double predestination, which argues that .od not only decides to elect some to eternal life but also actively predestines others to eternal destruction . . . . . . the distinction between ustification and sanctification 1 which came to the fore in the 0eformation 1 is almost totally absent from the medieval period . . . Like #ugustine, #6uinas believed that regeneration occurs at baptism . . . he held that not all the regenerate will persevere . . . #6uinas believed that humankind is unable to initiate or attain salvation e4cept by the grace of .od . . . he is completely dependent on .od for salvation . . . &hereas the 0eformers distinguished forensic ustification and progressive sanctification, #ugustine and #6uinas did not . . . #ugustine never held the doctrine of /double/ predestination . . . and actually argued against it . . . *efore Luther, the standard #ugustinian position on ustification stressed intrinsic ustification. Intrinsic ustification argues that the believer is made righteous by .od/s grace, as compared to e4trinsic ustification, by which a sinner is forensically declared righteous +at best, a subterranean strain in pre10eformation Christendom-. &ith Luther the situation changed dramatically . . .

+0oman Catholics and Cvangelicals$ #greements and Differences, with 0alph C. 2acEenFie, .rand 0apids, 2I$ *aker *ook House, 899=, =;7, <=,<9,9819:,99,7775 emphasis in original2uch the same demonstration can be made with regard to sola !criptura and other "rotestant distinctives. )o summariFe, then$ the only +biblical, logical- way to determine heresy and orthodo4y is the historical criterion of apostolic succession. #ny other method is circular, with no way to resolve competing claims. !o the choices boil down to logical circularity , theological relativism or Catholicism. @ne might suggest that @rthodo4y is another option. Indeed it is. @rthodo4y possesses apostolic succession as well. )he differences between Catholicism and @rthodo4y are another discussion altogether. !ola fide cannot be a legitimate development, because it is different in essence from infused ustification. If so many 0eformed "rotestants claim that our view is "elagianism or a false gospel of works, etc. because of its difference from the 0eformed e4trinsic, forensic, e4ternal, imputed righteousness, then how can their view be said to be merely a ?development? of ours, via #ugustine and others' # development cannot proceed from an entirely false view to a true one, or change in its essence. )his violates the very definition of development, on any coherent theological view of what the word means. It is not simply random evolution or change, but consistent change$ consistent with what has come before it, not radically divergent. )hat would be like saying that orthodo4 Chalcedon trinitarianism could have ?developed? from #rianism, !abellianism, or 2onophysitism. )herefore, sola fide must be considered as a corruption of #ugustinian +and patristic- soteriology, because it is entirely novel in essential aspects, as my two "rotestant citations showed. !t. #ugustine re ected double predestination, perseverance, imputed ustification, and accepted free will, sacramentalism, baptismal regeneration, the 0eal "resence of the Cucharist, the sacrifice of the 2ass, the central authoritative roles of the Church and )radition, as well as !cripture, the papacy, purgatory, penance, intercession of the saints, an e4alted role of 2ary, and human merit. In other words, he was a good Catholic. #s if this were some amaFing revelation . . . . 3ow how can a 0eformed "rotestant claim on the one hand that his views are descended from !t. #ugustine, yet on the other hand assert that Catholics are heretics, "elagians, and adherents of a false, idolatrous gospel, for believing the same sort of things that that same !t. #ugustine also held' If I am a heretic and not a Christian, then neither was #ugustine. If he was one, then so am I. &ithout too much trouble, one can find Catholic distinctives in !t. #ugustine/s classic, )he City of .od. For e4ample, the great Doctor appears to be talking about purgatory in %%,7=17G +?. . . at the udgment those who are worthy of such purification are to be purified even by fire5 and after that there will be found in all the saints no sin at all . . . ?-. Cf. %%I,8:. He clearly re ects the Lutheran,Calvinist ?bondage of the will? +H,8; and %II,I-. He teaches the sacrifice of the 2ass and the 0eal "resence of Christ in the Cucharist +%,=,7;5 %%I,7=-, baptismal regeneration +%III,I5 %%,G-, development of doctrine +%HI,7-, authoritative )radition +%HIII,:<-, and prayers for the dead +%%,95 %%I,7J-. How is it ?outside? of .od/s working to simply re ect His working' )his is absolutely illogical and nonsensical. How does a prisoner/s refusal to accept a governor/s pardon somehow make the pardon null and void, or change the essence of the fact that the governor does all$ all pardon comes from him, but a free agent can re ect it if he so chooses' )his is what #ugustine states in City of .od, H,8;$

It does not follow, because .od foreknew what would in the future be in our will, that there is nothing in the power of our will. He doesn/t create a false dichotomy, which is so characteristic of "rotestant thought. He accepts the parado4 and mystery +not contradiction- of divine sovereignty and human will, as !cripture also does. Let me put it in capital letters$ +in Catholic, )ridentine teaching- GOD DOES THE ENTIRE WORK OF GRACE AND JUSTIFICATION. MAN MERELY GOES ALONG WITH IT, OR REJECTS IT . Cven merit is .od rewarding His own gifts, as #ugustine accurately puts it. God's g !"# $s !%&!'s ( $m! ' !)d $)$t$!to '. @nce one is walking in that grace, there is merit, yes, but it must also be understood as ultimately initiated and entirely caused by .od.