Fifty Works From the Early Church That Every Christian Should Read

List Challenges ^ | January 7, 2020

[Chaguito]

The Epistle to Diognetus. An early apologetic discourse that starts with displaying the community of believers before positing doctrine or dogma.

[Antoninus]

The Epistle to Diognetus.

That's a good one. I read it in Archbishop Chaput's most recent book, and I know that an excerpt from it is included in one of the books on the list: I Am A Christian.

[Bratch]

[Antoninus]

But I'd have to attain a Methuselan llfespan to read all these--- at the pokey rate I'm going.

You and me both! I find that the more I read, the more I want to read, however. So there's that. So little time, however. :-)

[daniel1212]

Certainly, read Sacred Scripture.

Strange that you would commend the Douay-Rheims Bible when its own preface states,

Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all...to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages...

In our own country...[was] no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude, yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church.. . - Preface to the Douai-Rheims New Testament Translation of 1582; (http://www.bombaxo.com/douai-nt.html)

Certainly, read Sacred Scripture. All of the Church Fathers did--and they understood it much better than we do today. Heck, they lived in the same civilization that produced it!

And based on the same logic the same could be said of the Scribes and Pharisees, who actually did sit in the seat of Moses. Yet the common people had better discernment, and honestly, in holding John the baptizer to be "a prophet indeed" and gladly hearing an Itinerant Preacher and preachers who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And thus the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

The fundamental error many lot souls make is that of making the uninspired writings of post-apostolic men (or more accurately, what their self-proclaimed infallible church selectively chooses from them) determinitive of what the NT church believed, versus the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

In which distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest .

Catholic:

Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:45-49)

Truthful:

And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. (Mark 12:35-37)

[daniel1212]

What about the historical works of Josephus.

What, and let a Catholic read "Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time....” — Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41) which are though to correspond to the Prot . OT?

The whole list is biased in favor of RC propaganda, thus there can be no commendation of such works as,

History of the Christian Church (free)

Halley's Bible Handbook (free)

Classic Protestant commentaries (Henry, Barnes, Gill, Poole, Clarke, etc. free)

I am not much of a long reader myself, but there are two sides. And some Catholic researchers (among others) themselves provide evidence against RC propaganda .

[Antoninus]

The whole list is biased in favor of RC propaganda.

Really? These are the ancient sources, many of which were translated into English by....protestants!

[daniel1212]

The Douay-Rheims Bible

I forgot to add that this is not even on the list of your bishops list of approved translations though inferior ones are, which includes the official RC Bible for America with its often liberal notes (and notes are required) and aversion to translating “porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as simply rendering the words for fornication/fornicator as "immorality" or "immoral persons" among the many occurrences of the words for sexual immorality. (Matthew 5:32 Matthew 15:19 Matthew 19:9 Mark 7:21 John 8:41 Acts 15:20 Acts 15:29 Acts 21:25 Romans 1:29 1 Corinthians 5:1 1 Corinthians 5:9 1 Corinthians 5:10 1 Corinthians 5:11 1 Corinthians 6:9 1 Corinthians 6:13 1 Corinthians 6:18 1 Corinthians 5:9 ,10,11; 7:2; 6:9; 1 Corinthians 10:8 2 Corinthians 12:21 Galatians 5:19 Ephesians 5:3 Colossians 3:5 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Hebrews 12:16 Jude 7 Revelation 2:14,20,21; 9:21; 14:8;17:2,4; 18:3,9; 19:2) even though in most cases it is in a sexual context.

However,

It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

Thus either way your recommendation is not a positive recommendation for Rome.

[daniel1212]

Really? These are the ancient sources, many of which were translated into English by....protestants!

Sure. I read that the works of (so-called) church fathers that we have freely available on the Internet today are the result of Protestants. And for Reformers,

“...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position.

Additional support for this insistence comes from the attitude of the reformers toward the creeds and dogmas of the ancient catholic church. The reformers retained and cherished the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the two natures in Christ which had developed in the first five centuries of the church….”

“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear.

"Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable" — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, p. 46,47,49).

I myself often quote far more material from Catholic sources than my opponent, in documenting and exposing errors which accompanies such documentation and arguments I often interacted with.

Which does not change my statement at all that "The whole list is biased in favor of RC propaganda." You have only one side.

[Antoninus]

For the record, here is 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 from the Douay-Rheims translation:

[11] But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat. [12] For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? [13] For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves.

What's really cool is that the Douay-Rheims translation is easy to access today as there is a fantastic site (drbo.org) that allows you to search it, and pair versus with the corresponding ones in the Vulgate. People should check it out.

[Antoninus]

For a guy that's not much of a "long reader", you are an immensely long poster. Data-dumping has never been an effective tactic in my experience.

I myself often quote far more material from Catholic sources than my opponent,...

Ah, I think therein lies your problem. If you see everyone who doesn't agree with your own personal opinion as an "opponent", you are unlikely to break out of the tunnel-vision mindset you've put yourself in. No one will ever agree with you completely on every topic. Are all men and women, therefore, your opponents?

I would never discourage anyone from reading Sacred Scripture. By the same token, I would not discourage anyone from reading the Church Fathers. After all, they lived in the same civilization as Our Lord, the Apostles, and the writers of Sacred Scripture and, as a result, had an intuitive cultural knowledge that no later commentator can hope to match no matter how erudite.

[SES1066]

Many of these can be found for *free* on the 'Project Gutenberg' web site, albeit different editions / translators.

[Antoninus]

Many of these can be found for *free* on the 'Project Gutenberg' web site, albeit different editions / translators.

Yup. Or in Google Books.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Damn straight.

Oh, and fellow Christifideles Rigiditi, check these out for a little guilty pleasure. The first one is awfully musically deficient, but the second at least gets the parody down pretty well.

Self-Absorbed Neo-Promethians

Neo-Arian Chaps

And the third is -- in my opinion --- rather inspired. Anything for Love

Here's the whole collection: Laurence England Videos

Tagline

[daniel1212]

For the record, here is 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 from the Douay-Rheims translation: [11] But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat. [12] For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? [13] For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves.

And the KJV states,

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)

Look much the same? No wonder: "

Much of the text of the 1582/1610 [DRB] bible employed a densely Latinate vocabulary, making it extremely difficult to read the text in places. Consequently, this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions of 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Version[4] rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. Subsequent editions of the Challoner revision, of which there have been very many, reproduce his Old Testament of 1750 with very few changes. Challoner's New Testament was, however, extensively revised by Bernard MacMahon in a series of Dublin editions from 1783 to 1810. These Dublin versions are the source of some Challoner bibles printed in the United States in the 19th century. Subsequent editions of the Challoner Bible printed in England most often follow Challoner's earlier New Testament texts of 1749 and 1750, as do most 20th-century printings and on-line versions of the Douay–Rheims bible circulating on the internet. "

As a recent translation, the Rheims New Testament had an influence on the translators of the King James Version (see below )...

The degree to which the King James Version drew on the Rheims version has, therefore, been the subject of considerable debate;..Fortunately, much of this debate was resolved in 1969..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible#Influence_on_the_King_James_Version

[daniel1212]

For a guy that's not much of a "long reader", you are an immensely long poster. Data-dumping has never been an effective tactic in my experience.

Well, one reason is that from experience Catholics will not read linked material, and or just reiterate what the latter corrected, and thus placing actual content in the post is fitting. And some Catholics have outright said they would not read any material from non-Catholic sites. One even said the only thing he would consider was if it was from the Vatican's own site. Though that was before Francis.

Ah, I think therein lies your problem. If you see everyone who doesn't agree with your own personal opinion as an "opponent", you are unlikely to break out of the tunnel-vision mindset you've put yourself in.

Which is begging the question, while rather then me - who read and provides Catholic material, and has also sometimes come to disagree with some of my fellows evangelicals on certain issues of contention as a result of deeper consideration - being the one with tunnel vision, it is the Catholics who cannot allow themselves to go where the Truth of Scripture leads.

For indeed the basis for the veracity of any Truth claims on faith and morality rests upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council

No one will ever agree with you completely on every topic. Are all men and women, therefore, your opponents?

Which is simply a non-sequitur accusation. The insinuation that I do is unwarranted, as it does not logically follow from what I said or did. I neither presume to speak as a pope (possessing ensured veracity) or require or expect that everyone agree with me completely on every topic. But I do expect that the weight of evidential warrant should determine a conclusion. To which Christ Himself appealed.

I would never discourage anyone from reading Sacred Scripture.

Then that sets you at odds with medieval Rome. Which also forbade you to debate in hostile venues as this often is. But the change as resulting from Rome's loss of her unScriptural sword of men is explained otherwise.

By the same token, I would not discourage anyone from reading the Church Fathers.

Nor did I, but reproved making them determinitive of what the NT church believed.

After all, they lived in the same civilization as Our Lord, the Apostles, and the writers of Sacred Scripture and, as a result, had an intuitive cultural knowledge that no later commentator can hope to match no matter how erudite.

Wrong: living in the same civilization simply does not necessarily translate into one always faithfully representing what others of the same civilization meant, as was explained (Scribes and Pharisees, among others). Unscriptural movements began early, and further away in years the more deviations and inventions develop (look at even SCOTUS)

Thus what church history testifies to the progressive accretion of traditions of men (while retaining enough salvific Truth so that a remnant could be saved). That of distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed,

In addition, the very earliest ECF's offer little of substance, while if some degree of intuitive cultural knowledge of the NT church culture one had many hundreds of years later (mostly), equates to proper understanding of teaching, then the Talmud(s) is what should interpret the Old Testament.

Certainly knowledge of cultural can often be helpful, and for which we have much material today, yet this neither prevents nonsense such as the views of certain ECFs' such as Jerome had on virginity verse marriage being taught or distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in Scripture.

Moreover, as far as illumination of the spiritual meaning of Scripture, this requires regeneration and a love of Scripture as the supreme standard, which such Catholic inventions are contrary to.

I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. (Psalms 119:99-100)

And the classic Protestant commentaries such Henry, Barnes, Gill, Poole, Clarke, etc. excel in both scope and depth. John McArthur today had a good teaching "Be Not Drunk with Wine " that provided some revealing historical cultural info while providing a good balance on the issue of drinking.

[newberger]

"The whole list is biased in favor of RC propaganda."

If that is true, can you provide a list of books from the same early centuries that gives a Protestant perspective?

It doesn't have to be as long. Can you list ten? If you can't, how can you call the original list propaganda? If the whole of early church writings seem catholic what does that tell us?

[daniel1212]

Well, if you like related poetry:

The following dialogue is purportedly written by Bishop Williamson. I have no idea if that is true. But whatever of that, it is an informative exposition of the debate within the SSPX.

SL = SSPX soft-liner. HL = SSPX hard-liner.

SL Outside the Church is not where we should be!
HL Who left the Church? Vatican II! Not we!

SL Once in the Church, we could do so much more!
HL If we detested error, as before.

SL Why should we stop detesting error, pray?
HL Because we would be joining in their fray.

SL We need to live within the Church’s law.
HL Not if it is not serving God any more.

SL The Catholic Church is visible. We’re not there.
HL The Church is holy. Do we see that? Where?

SL But things have changed since the Archbishop’s day.
HL The modernists still hold exclusive sway.

SL What Rome now offers, he would have approved.
HL Never, once Benedict to Assisi moved!

SL The SSPX stands strong, need fear no fall.
HL Let all who stand fear falling, says St. Paul.

SL But our Superiors have grace of state.
HL Did leading churchmen never prevaricate?

SL Our leaders to the SSPX belong!
HL And does that mean they never can do wrong?

SL But, Pre-condition One, Rome freed the Mass.
HL And left in place the “bastard rite”, so crass.

SL Rome also lifted the ban on bishops four.
HL But did that make them more free than before?

SL Yet Benedict is calling for our aid.
HL To make Truth prosper, or to help it fade?

SL Of harming Truth, how can the Pope be accused?
HL His modernist mind is hopelessly confused.

SL Yet truly, Benedict wants us all back in.
HL As a modernist, yes, but modernism is a sin.

SL Then do you still believe that he is Pope?
HL Yes, but we must for his conversion hope.

SL What can you mean by, “As a modernist, yes”?
HL Our true Faith he can only harm, not bless.

SL Our welfare is his genuine concern.
HL Not our true welfare, if our true Faith he spurn.

SL A lack of supernatural spirit you show!
HL If woe I say there is, where there is woe?

SL Not everything in the Church is gloomy, dark!
HL Where do you see of true revival a spark?

SL A movement towards Tradition is under way!
HL While fully in control the modernists stay?

SL Then is the official Church still God’s own Church?
HL Yes, it’s the churchmen left us in the lurch.

SL But surely Pope and Rome have both meant well.
HL So? – “Good intentions pave the way to Hell.”

SL But evils worse that Vatican Two can be.
HL The Archbishop – remember? – called it World War III.

SL You’re harsh. Your attitude to schism will lead.
HL Better than undermine the entire creed!

SL Not all the Church authorities are bad.
HL The good ones have no power. It’s very sad.

SL Priests should not say, authority is untrue.
HL But bishops were the cause of Vatican II!

SL Still, Catholic instincts seek their Catholic home.
HL Today, for Catholics, that’s no longer Rome.

SL Then where is the Church? Just in Tradition? Where?
HL “One, holy, catholic, apostolic” – there.

SL You want to solve this problem overnight!
HL No, just that a start be made to set it right.

SL We trust in God. We trust in his Sacred Heart.
HL Bravo! But humans too must play their part.

SL That part is not for us just to complain.
HL Tradcats work hard, Tradition to maintain.

SL If we went in with Rome, we could turn back.
HL No. More and more we’d follow in Rome’s track.

SL Why stop the Romans making restitution?
HL Because they’re set upon our destitution.

SL Back in the mainstream Church we’d set to work!
HL Rather we’d lose our way in all their murk.

SL But we are strong, with bishops one and three.
HL Alas, the three with the one do not agree.

SL We’re firm in the Faith. Modernists are no threat!
HL We’d easily slide. You want to take a bet?

SL Strong in the Faith, we can afford to agree!
HL But that Faith says, from heretics to flee.

SL But Gott mit uns! We are the SSPX!
HL Not if we choose to ignore all prudent checks.

SL Were we approved, Romans would learn from us!
HL O Heavens, no! They’d throw us under the bus.

SL Were we approved, the earth of Rome could quake.
HL But not before to pieces we would shake.

SL Our leader has graces of state. We must obey.
HL Was Paul the Sixth given graces to betray?

SL Rome is now weak, meaning, we could stay strong.
HL For right, Rome’s feeble. Mighty it is for wrong.

SL So what’s the answer, if you’re always right?
How can the Church be rescued from its plight?

HL The Church belongs to God. In his good time
We’ll see his answer, stunning and sublime.

Till then we grieve, and thirst for right, and trust.
That which we cannot cure, endure we must.

From error and the erring stay away,
Even while for their immortal souls we pray.

And tell God’s truth, however few will hear –
As close as the nearest door, his help is near.

Posted by Fr John on May 11, 2012 in Culture, Current affairs, Liturgy | 23 comments www.boacp.com/tag/sspx/

[Luircin]

I can list 30, and they blow Catholicism’s claims out of the water.

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.” Source: Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 32.4.

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!” Source: The Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2-5.

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.” Source: Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 13.

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.” Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.112.

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.” Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.136.

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.” Source: Hilary, Commentary on Matthew (on Matt. 20:7)

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.” Source: Hilary, Commentary on Matthew (on Matt. 9:3)

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] Source: Didymus the Blind. Commentary on James, 2:26b.

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.” Source: Basil, Homily on Humility, 20.3.

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.” Source: Jerome, Epistle to the Ephesians, 1.2.1.

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.” Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, 4.2.9.

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.” Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 7.27.

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.” Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts, 32 (regarding Acts 15:1)

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.” Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, 4.1.

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.” Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Colossians, 5.2.

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.” Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 8.1.

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.” Source: Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 2-4.

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.” Source: Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 6-7.

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.” Source: Ambrosiaster, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:4.

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.” Source: Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans 3:24.

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.” Source: Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans 3:27.

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.” Source: Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Paul’s Epistles; CSEL 81 ad loc.

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.” Source: Marius Victorinus, Epistle to the Ephesians, 1.2.9.

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?” Source: Prosper of Acquitaine, Call of All Nations, 1.17

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?” Source: Cyril of Alexandria, Against Nestorius, 3.62

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.” Source: Fulgentius, On the Incarnation, 1; CCL 91:313.

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.

[Preachin']

Bookmark