"As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, 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!"

The unworthiness of attaining life through our own works? Christ's righteousness being substitutionary, like His atoning work? Christ's righteousness covering our sins? (This is similar to Luther's dunghill analogy.) This is the evangelical gospel. And it's far from the gospel of Roman Catholicism. Similarly, Clement of Rome excludes works from the gospel (First Clement, 32), including works "wrought in holiness of heart". He goes on in chapter 33 to encourage the Corinthians to do the works he had just excluded from the gospel, so he couldn't have been excluding only bad, faithless, graceless, or uninspired works. He had to have been excluding good works.

When Tertullian writes his treatise On Baptism, he specifically mentions people during his day who were opposing baptismal regeneration in favor of sola fide. Some of the people he refers to are the heretical Cainites, but he also suggests that there are others. (It's not always clear who he's responding to.)

The person who wrote you the letter about justification specifically mentioned "forensic justification", so she may be looking for something more than an affirmation of sola fide. She claimed, though, that the concept is "entirely missing". But if people like Clement of Rome and the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus ("Mathetes") advocate concepts such as the exclusion of good works and the substitutionary righteousness of Christ, what's the point of demanding more? Is she going to deny six because it isn't half a dozen? I wonder if she's this concerned about the church fathers not saying anything about there being seven sacraments, Mary being dispenser of all grace, etc. Or does she have this concern for so much specificity only in regard to evangelical doctrine?

George Salmon wrote:

"An unlearned Protestant perceives that the doctrine of Rome is not the doctrine of the Bible. A learned Protestant adds that neither is it the doctrine of the primitive Church (The Infallibility of the Church [London, England: John Murray, 1914], p. 39)

I agree with you that we can prove evangelicalism, and disprove Catholicism, from the Bible alone. But this false claim that the evangelical view of salvation is "entirely missing" from the church father era ought to be refuted more often. When the claim is repeatedly made without being refuted, the impression is left that the claim is true. And it's not. Catholics can try to dismiss a document like The Epistle to Diognetus by claiming that it isn't specific enough, but what does that prove? It isn't as specific as a treatise or a book written by one of the Protestant reformers or a modern evangelical apologist, but it is specific enough to agree with the evangelical gospel and contradict the Catholic gospel, as far as it goes. If men like Clement of Rome and Mathetes didn't advocate everything that evangelicals advocate today, they at least were far closer to evangelicalism than Roman Catholicism.

Jason Engwer

Christian Liberty

"Certain ingenious but particularly imprudent persons imagine new opinions from badly distorted statements of Scripture. They completely reject the consensus of the church and all synods without distinction. For example, Servetus fights with the church of all times and distorts the statements about the word in John 1, seeking a more elegant interpretation as he thinks. In order that such impudence may be held in check, the church needs a certain fence, so to speak, as the ancient synods and writers quote the earliest testimonies received from the apostles and from trustworthy writers" (Commentary on Romans by Philip Melanchthon translated by Fred Kramer [Concordia], 1992, p. 239).

"We confess also that we disagree with those who invent opinions which have no testimony from any period in the church, as Servetus, Campanus, the Anabaptists, and others have done in our time. We also hold that no dogma that is new in the churches and in conflict with all of antiquity should be accepted. What could be more honorably said and thought concerning the consensus and testimonies of antiquity" (Examination of the Council of Trent by Martin Chemnitz translated by Fred Kramer, Vol. 1 [Concordia], 1971, p. 258).

"So that in truth nothing is more opposed to fanaticism and libertinism than the spirit of the Reformation, which does not urge anything more strongly than the desire of holiness and the well-settled method of living according to the word of God. And it opposed nothing more than that furious and fanatical sect of impure men and projectors of all lust. Who fought against them more powerfully than our Calvin? Who disclosed more clearly the impiety and impurity of its doctrines? And since it is the primary foundation of our faith to adhere to Scripture alone, all secret and immediate inspirations and revelations being disregarded, who does not see how alien it is to fanaticism, which continually boasts of its new revelations and inspirations? Nor, if we wish each believer with the spirit of discretion to be able to judge of a proposed doctrine according to the rule of the word, do we on that account introduce a private and fanatical spirit" (Institutes of Elenctic Theology by Francis Turretin translated by George Giger, Vol. 3 [Presbyterian and Reformed Press], 1997, p.146).

Anyway, it's important to keep in mind that there is a distinct difference between the development of an existing doctrine (as in the Reformers on justification), and the invention of a new doctrine at odds with all antiquity (i.e. Marian doctrines). For example, St. John Chrysostom is one of my favorite Church Fathers He clearly taught that Christians are not justified by their works (i.e. no synergism).

"For this is [the righteousness] ‘of God’ when we are justified not by works, (in which case it Were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away" (On the Second Epistle of St. Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians, Homily 11).

"Thou seest the power, thou seest the gift bestowed not by works, but through the Gospel. These are objects of hope: for both were wrought in His Body. And how will they be wrought in ours? "By the Gospel."" (Homilies on 2 Timothy, Homily 2).

Having excluded works from the picture, Chrysostom was equally clear that man must be justified by faith:

"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 (periousiva nivkh" pollh'"). 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" (The Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul The Apostle to the Romans, Homily 8).

"Now to prevent your saying, How, when liable for so great sins, came we to be justified? he points out One that blotteth out all sins, that both from Abraham’s faith, whereby he was justified, and from the Savior’s Passion, whereby we were freed from our sins, he might confirm what he had said" (The Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul The Apostle to the Romans, Homily 9).

"Then, as they made great account of the Patriarch, he brings his example forward, and shows that he too was justified by Faith. And if he who was before grace, was justified by Faith, although plentiful in works, much more we. For what loss was it to him, not being under the Law? None, for his faith sufficed unto righteousness" (Homilies on Galatians, Chapter 3).

"Attend to this point. He Himself who gave the Law, had decreed, before He gave it, that the heathen should be justified by Faith" (Homilies on Galatians, Chapter 3).

"Then, that they might not turn round, and object that, true it was Abraham was justified by Faith, for the Law was not then given, but what instance would be found of Faith justifying after the delivery of the Law? he addresses himself to this, and proves more than they required: namely, not only that Faith was justifying, but that the Law brought its adherents under a curse" (Homilies on Galatians, Chapter 3).

"Now as the Scripture says, "the just shall live by faith," thus repudiating salvation by the Law, and moreover as Abraham was justified by Faith, it is evident that its efficacy is very great. And it is also clear, that he who abides not by the Law is cursed, and that he who keeps to Faith is just" (Homilies on Galatians, Chapter 3).

"As the grace of the Spirit could not possibly descend on the graceless and offending, they are first blessed the curse having been removed; then being justified by faith, they draw unto themselves the grace of the Spirit. Thus the Cross removed the curse, Faith brought in righteousness, righteousness drew on the grace of the Spirit" (Homilies on Galatians, Chapter 3).

In short, Chrysostom taught that we are not justified by works, but we are justified through faith. This equates to the Reformers contention that we are justified by faith alone. In fact, one need not look far in the writings of Chrysostom to find such assertions:

"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" (A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 32).

"They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, ‘In thee shall all nations be blessed,’ (Genesis 12:4.) at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law" (Homily on Galatians, Chapter 3).

"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.’ (Matthew 5:22.) That is to say, ‘If thou shalt believe that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.’ (Romans 10:6-9.) 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" (Homiles on Ephesians, Homily 5).

"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" (Homiles on Colossians, Homily 5).

"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: yet is it of faith only. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works" (On the Second Epistle of St. Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians, Homily 2).

"The favors of God so far exceed human hope and expectation, that often they are not believed. For God has bestowed upon us such things as the mind of man never looked for, never thought of. It is for this reason that the Apostles spend much discourse in securing a belief of the gifts that are granted us of God. For as men, upon receiving some great good, ask themselves if it is not a dream, as not believing it; so it is with respect to the gifts of God. 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.’" (Homiles on 1 Timothy, Homily 4).

"As the Jews were chiefly attracted by this, he persuades them not 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." (Homiles on 1 Timothy, Homily 4).We can confidently say that since the Scriptures themselves also force the church to distinguish between faith and works, we have not only a doctrine of faith and a doctrine of works, but a doctrine of faith vs. works for salvation. All churches are in agreement that the law and the gospel differ, but as in the case of two children who sprang from the same parent, the Reformers felt that we are best able to tell them apart when we compare them.

God's richest blessings!

Gail LaRue