The NT Canon Was Not Decided at Nicea—Nor Any Other Church Council. (8/10)

Ten Basic Facts about the NT Canon that Every Christian Should:

1. The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess
2. The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess
3. The New Testament Books Are Unique Because They Are Apostolic Books
4. Some NT Writers Quote Other NT Writers as Scripture
5. The Four Gospels are Well Established by the End of the Second Century
6. At the End of the Second Century, the Muratorian Fragment lists 22 of our 27 NT books
7. Early Christians Often Used Non-Canonical Writings.

Great thread!

It seems to me when you consider that the NT was written by people who lived during the period that the Apostles walked the earth and these books were read by the Apostles, we should be even more confident in having Scripture as the rule of our faith.

The fact of the matter is that when we look into early church history there is no such council. Sure, there are regional church councils that made declarations about the canon (Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage). But these regional councils did not just “pick” books they happened to like, but affirmed the books they believed had functioned as foundational documents for the Christian faith. In other words, these councils were declaring the way things had been, not the way they wanted them to be. Thus, these councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. They simply were part of the process of recognizing a canon that was already there.

Thanks for posting this, Gamecock!

bump

But none of those give is size, range, selection of ammunition for the NT Cannon.

“but by a broad and ancient consensus” AKA “apostolic tradition”
in which group of people was this “broad and ancient consensus” arrived at? the Universal Church

bonus question - did the same group of people ( the Universal Church ) that arrived at the broad and ancient consensus of 27 NT books, did they also arrive at the broad and ancient consensus of 39 OT books?

Less a “rule” than testimony. The writings are not codified, and except for Romans not anything like systematic. Collections of apostolic writings. Revelation is the oddball. The Eastern Church did not include it until quite late, and most Christians lived in the East.

The basic group of what we today consider the NT was first written by St Athanasius in a letter he wrote as Bishop of Alexandria proclaiming the date of Easter.

The Church; that is THE BODY OF BELIEVERS accepted Gospel writings early on. Several Old Testament quotes are discussed with Gospel references on an equal footing in Pauline and other Letters.
Vincent of Lerins said the Canon was what had been believed always everywhere by all.

Exactly! The latter declarations by councils was merely the invocation of the authority of the bishops to settle a disputed question. This authority was recognized by the equal consensus of the early Church. This same consensus of the early Church also held the Eucharist as the actual Body and Blood of Jesus:

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.
(Justin Martyr, First Apology, 155-157 A.D.)

To accept the authority of the church in the determination of the canon one must also accept its authority in other areas of doctrine. The Bible does not float above and separate from the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Church.

““but by a broad and ancient consensus” AKA “apostolic tradition”
in which group of people was this “broad and ancient consensus” arrived at? the Universal Church”

I really don’t understand why you take every opportunity to come and thump your chest, especially after the last time. Obviously, if Jerome, Cajetan, Athanasius, John of Damascus, Rufinus, etc represent “Apostolic tradition,” then Catholicism does not, because they hold to a different canon.

“This same consensus of the early Church also held the Eucharist as the actual Body and Blood of Jesus:”

Well, that’s not accurate. Transubstantiation is not an ancient view, and should not be confused with a view that Christ is really present in the Lord’s Supper. Compare this distinction with the words of Augustine, who quite clearly held to a “real presence” that is spiritual, received by faith, and not carnal:

Augustine, writing on his “rule for interpreting commands,” calls the eating of Christ to be figurative, since otherwise it compels us to do something that is unlawful.

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head, one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, He who loves his life shall lose it, we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man’s duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, Let him lose his life— that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, help not a sinner. Understand, therefore, that sinner is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.” (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Ch. 16)

Augustine - Against Transubstantiation

When the Eucharist is offered, it is ourselves who we receive. A spiritual lesson is to be received from it, which is the purpose of the sacrament.

“How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood? The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you.” (Augustine, Sermon 272)

Same theme, different sermon.

“I haven’t forgotten my promise. I had promised those of you who have just been baptized a sermon to explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you can see right now, and which you shared in last night. You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be.” (Augustine, Sermon 227)

The Eucharist, which symbolizes both the entire church and Christ, “not really consumed.” The Eucharist signifies an invisible reality, and is not that reality. Christians should take the spiritual lesson of unity from the Lord’s supper. Also from sermon 227.

“What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.” (Augustine, Ser. 227)

The body and blood of Christ consumed through faith without eating or drinking. Believe, saith Augustine, and thou hast eaten already.

“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)

To believe in Christ is to eat the living bread. This cannot be so if transubstantiation is true.

“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)

The body of Christ not held by any believer, even in the sacrament. Christ is held in the heart, and not in the hand. This cannot be so if transubstantation is true.

“Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him.” (Augustine, Tractate 50)

Christ must be understood spiritually, not carnally.

“It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.” NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98)

These things cannot be so if transubstantiation is the historical Christian interpretation.

More:

In another place, he tells us that it is weakness to interpret the sign as being what it signifies (for example, seeing in the Eucharist the actual body and blood of Christ, and not the sign of the body and blood of Christ).

“To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error.” (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Ch. 9)

In still another place, he calls referring to the Eucharist as the “body and blood of Christ” as only a “certain manner of speaking,” the act itself obviously being non-literal:

“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion, although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, This day the Lord rose from the dead, although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood.” (Augustine, Letters 98)

And, finally, from the most valuable source of all:

Jesus Christ - Against Transubstantiation

The blood of the covenant still the fruit of the vine, which he will drink AGAIN when He is reunited with the Apostles in heaven, signifying he had drank or was about to drink of what was allegedly His own blood, and will do so again in heaven:

“And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
(Mat 26:27-29)

“I haven’t forgotten my promise. I had promised those of you who have just been baptized a sermon to explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you can see right now, and which you shared in last night. You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. “

LOL, see what extent those who perish in their disputes go to try and accuse the great St Augustine of not believing in transubstantiation- what Protestant would say “the bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BODY OF CHRIST”

let me repeat the words of St Augustine - “ the bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BODY OF CHRIST”

Could Calvin ever agree with that? Luther?

uh oh, more problems for those who like to imagine St Augustine as a Protestant - he said there was an “altar”!!

bonus question for those who fantasize he was a Protestant - did St Augustine believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass?

This is My Body —

Eucharistic Consecration and Transubstantiation

by St. Ambrose of Milan

Early Church Father & Doctor of the Church

Saint Ambrose, The Eucharist, Manna, Early Church Fathers

While the word “transubstantiation” is not employed here, the substance of this doctrine of Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist is evident in this passage from St. Ambrose’s treatise On the Mysteries (Nn. 52-54. 58: SC 25 bis, 186-188. 190) dating back to about 380 AD. Used in the Roman Office of Readings on Saturday of the 15th week in ordinary time, this excerpt explains the power of the words of Eucharistic consecration (a.k.a “the words of institution”). St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan who baptized St. Augustine, is one of the most important of the Early Church Fathers. For a general overview of the Early Church Fathers, click here.

We see that grace can accomplish more than nature, yet so far we have been considering instances of what grace can do through a prophet’s blessing. If the blessing of a human being had power even to change nature, what do we say of God’s action in the consecration itself, in which the very words of the Lord and Savior are effective? If the words of Elijah had power even to bring down fire from heaven, will not the words of Christ have power to change the natures of the elements? You have read that in the creation of the words of Christ have power to change the natures of the elements? You have read that in the creation of the whole world he spoke and they came to be; he commanded and they were created. If Christ could by speaking create out of nothing what did not yet exist, can we say that his words are unable to change existing things into something they previously were not? It is no lesser feat to create new natures for things than to change their existing natures.

What need is there for argumentation? Let us take what happened in the case of Christ himself and construct the truth of this mystery from the mystery of the incarnation. Did the birth of the Lord Jesus from Mary come about in the course of nature? If we look at nature we regularly find that conception results from the union of man and women. It is clear then that the conception by the Virgin was above and beyond the course of nature. And this body that we make present is the body born of the Virgin. Why do you expect to find in this case that nature takes its ordinary course in regard to the body of Christ when the Lord himself was born of the Virgin in a manner above and beyond the order of nature? This is indeed the true flesh of Christ, which was crucified and buried. This is then in truth the sacrament of his flesh.

The Lord Jesus himself declares: This is my body. Before the blessing contained in these words a different thing is named; after the consecration a body is indicated. He himself speaks of his blood. Before the consecration something else is spoken of; after the consecration blood is designated. And you say: “Amen”, that is: “It is true”. What the mouth utters, let the mind within acknowledge; what the word says, let the heart ratify.

So the Church, in response to grace so great, exhorts her children, exhorts her neighbors, to hasten to these mysteries: Neighbors, she says, come and eat; brethren, drink and be filled. In another passage the Holy Spirit has made clear to you what you are to eat, what you are to drink. Taste, the prophet says, and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who puts his trust in him. Christ is in that sacrament, for it is the body of Christ. It is therefore not bodily food but spiritual. Thus the Apostle too says, speaking of its symbol: Our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink. For the body of God is spiritual; the body of Christ is that of a divine spirit, for Christ is a spirit. We read: The spirit before our face is Christ the Lord. And in the letter of Saint Peter we have this: Christ died for you. Finally, it is this food that gives strength to our hearts, this drink which gives joy to the heart of man, as the prophet has written.

posted from the crossroads initiative by dr marcellino d’ambrosio

now, i wonder if my friend can ever find a sermon or letter from St Augustine attacking anyone for believing in transubstantiation such as St Ambrose, the man who baptized him! look in vain my friend.

Apocalypse does not meet your criteria. This was read at the most by one apostle (if one considers John of Patmos to be the same as the Apostle John, but that’s doubtful)

A very selective, and misleading, reading of St. Augustine. A good response can be found here. In any case we are discussing the consensus of the early Church, not the opinions of one man. I will point out again the much earlier words of St. Justin Martyr from above:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

Similarly St. Ignatius of Antioch:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.
(Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans)

And finally, St. Ambrose, who was St. Augustine's mentor:

We see that grace can accomplish more than nature, yet so far we have been considering instances of what grace can do through a prophet’s blessing. If the blessing of a human being had power even to change nature, what do we say of God’s action in the consecration itself, in which the very words of the Lord and Savior are effective? If the words of Elijah had power even to bring down fire from heaven, will not the words of Christ have power to change the natures of the elements? You have read that in the creation of the words of Christ have power to change the natures of the elements? You have read that in the creation of the whole world he spoke and they came to be; he commanded and they were created. If Christ could by speaking create out of nothing what did not yet exist, can we say that his words are unable to change existing things into something they previously were not? It is no lesser feat to create new natures for things than to change their existing natures.
What need is there for argumentation? Let us take what happened in the case of Christ himself and construct the truth of this mystery from the mystery of the incarnation. Did the birth of the Lord Jesus from Mary come about in the course of nature? If we look at nature we regularly find that conception results from the union of man and women. It is clear then that the conception by the Virgin was above and beyond the course of nature. And this body that we make present is the body born of the Virgin. Why do you expect to find in this case that nature takes its ordinary course in regard to the body of Christ when the Lord himself was born of the Virgin in a manner above and beyond the order of nature? This is indeed the true flesh of Christ, which was crucified and buried. This is then in truth the sacrament of his flesh.
The Lord Jesus himself declares: This is my body. Before the blessing contained in these words a different thing is named; after the consecration a body is indicated. He himself speaks of his blood. Before the consecration something else is spoken of; after the consecration blood is designated. And you say: “Amen”, that is: “It is true”. What the mouth utters, let the mind within acknowledge; what the word says, let the heart ratify.
So the Church, in response to grace so great, exhorts her children, exhorts her neighbors, to hasten to these mysteries: Neighbors, she says, come and eat; brethren, drink and be filled. In another passage the Holy Spirit has made clear to you what you are to eat, what you are to drink. Taste, the prophet says, and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who puts his trust in him. Christ is in that sacrament, for it is the body of Christ. It is therefore not bodily food but spiritual. Thus the Apostle too says, speaking of its symbol: Our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink. For the body of God is spiritual; the body of Christ is that of a divine spirit, for Christ is a spirit. We read: The spirit before our face is Christ the Lord. And in the letter of Saint Peter we have this: Christ died for you. Finally, it is this food that gives strength to our hearts, this drink which gives joy to the heart of man, as the prophet has written.
(On the Mysteries)

No, the consensus of the early Church was that the bread and wine in the Eucharist became the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

“let me repeat the words of St Augustine - “ the bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BODY OF CHRIST”

Could Calvin ever agree with that? Luther?”

Yes, certainly. Luther held to consubstantiation, Calvin did not hold to consubstantiation or transubstantiation, but held to this:

“The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.”(John Calvin)

But we also hold to this, with Augustine:

“To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.” (Augustine, Tractate 25)

And this latter view is in no way compatible with Catholic theology on transubstantiation, nor do any of his other quotes.

As for Ambrose, he is hard to figure out since he seems to outright contradict himself. I suspect he does not mean what he seems to mean, considering this was a long time before tarnsubstantiation would gain credit as a doctrine. In another place, Ambrose writes:

“In eating and drinking the things which are offered for us, we signify the flesh and the blood. You receive the sacrament as a similitude; it is the figure of the body and blood of the Lord. You drink the likeness of his precious blood.” (Ambrose, On the Sacraments, book 4, c. 4)

Other interesting quotes from Ambrose:

On Sola Fide

“Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works ; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted. (Ambrose, Letter 73)

“I have nothing, therefore, whereby I may glory in my works ; I have nothing to boast of, and, therefore, I will glory in Christ. I will not glory because I am righteous, but because I am redeemed. I will not glory because I am free from sin, but because my sins are pardoned. I will not glory because I have done good to any one, or any one has done good to me, but because Christ is my advocate with the Father, and because Christ’s blood was shed for me.” (Ambrose, Concerning Jacob and a Happy Life, book 1, c. 6.)

“Ye behold the mysteries, ye behold the grace of Christ, and the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is conferred in some sort fortuitously ; for as much as every one is not justified by the Lord by reason of his works, but by reason of his faith.” (Ambrose, An Exhortation to Virginity)

(if one considers John of Patmos to be the same as the Apostle John, but that’s doubtful)

Do I have to drink Qoolaid?