Just let us know if we can be of any help. You might be interested in Bryan Cross’s article – “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide” which is a little more – hands-on with the text.

All glory to God,
Maim

But the ‘silly’ comment, although it might come off as dismissive, is the conclusion of a number of arguments, many of which have been studiously presented in other places on this site. The core tenet of our religion cannot be left to probabilities, or to which readings seem most likely in our own eyes. This is the ultimate realization that has led many like myself to become Catholic. The academy can never demand the assent of faith, no matter how persuasive its argument is. (In this case, the arguments aren’t very persuasive anyway.) But even if they were, my conscience can only be bound by someone with divine authority. I don’t have that authority, so I cannot put my faith in my own ‘best reading’ of Scripture. The academy doesn’t have it, and neither did the original Protestant leaders. The Church has it, or no one has it.

I’m sorry the quote tags didn’t appear properly as I would have liked. How inconvenient!

First quote:
“@Maim, I don’t quote understand the argument you are making…
…Thank you Maim for the time but I am sorry that I cannot continue this conversation further than here. May the Lord open eyes and ears to the gospel of grace. Shalom.”

Second quote, from R.E. Aguirre:
“The bottom line is that it is a no win situation for the Protestant. If he agrees with Luther then he must admit that the Protestant articulation of justification sola fidei is a novel interpretation with no historical precedent. On the other hand, if the Protestant goes the route of those such as Gerstner and claim that justification sola fideidoes have historical backing vis a vi Augustine, he can be summarily refuted by Augustine’s own primary writings as well as a mountain of Protestant scholars that have denied the Protestant formulation of justification on Augustine, (or any Catholic father for that matter).”

Last quote, from James Swan:
“Sola Fide is based on grammatical and exegetical work on the Biblical text, not on the testimony of history.”

^Any words not in these quotes, are mine.

I appreciate your response. Would you please elaborate why that’s “pretty silly”? Just that it simply seems improbable?

In reply to your bottom line — if someone agrees that St. Augustine was not Reformed (and that no early Christian was), and still wants to be Reformed, I wouldn’t really argue with them; at least not as far as the point in this post goes. It could be the case that everyone misread the gospel up until Calvin and that Calvin misread most of those who misread the Scriptures, thinking they agreed with him, but at the same time, he correctly read the Scriptures. That’s possible on face value. But it’s also pretty silly. I’m not real excited about trying to argue with anyone who thinks that.

I come as a young theologian wrestling with the enormous topic of justification, and thus, Augustinian soteriology. I just typed up this whole thing and I decided for convenience you can skip down to the bottom line in bold to get the gist of what I’m saying and then read through this monstrosity if you have the time to help me figure this out!

So far, I’ve come across arguments that sola fide/imputed righteousness comes straight from Augustine. Let me quote, wholesale, someone who has argues this. I initiated the discussion because I noticed this online bookstore quoting Augustine: ‎”If you shall be paid what you deserve, you must be punished. What then happens? God has not rendered you the punishment you deserve, but bestows undeserved grace. If you would be estranged from grace, boast of your own merits.”

I stated, Why quote Augustine if he wasn’t Reformed/believed in imputed justification?

Then followed a long conversation, with the final response (emphasis mine):

@Maim, I don’t quote understand the argument you are making. Go back to the beginning. This whole conversation started because you criticized us simply for quoting Augustine, as if it were inappropriate, and there is actually nothing inappropriate about it. The quote we posted was entirely scriptural and had nothing to do with the whole topic you brought in from the outside. You found it questionable that a Reformed site had quotes from Augustine. I find this totally at odds with history and anything resembling sound reason. You might as well throw out the whole Protestant Reformation without Augustine’s influence. That’s how deeply imbedded his theology of salvation was to that movement in the 16th century. Look in to it. Read Calvin’s Institutes. He quotes him more liberally on grace than any book you will ever read.

Next, You said, ‘Even Roman Catholics believe salvation is through Christ alone and man does nothing to deserve saving faith.’

No they don’t actually. On the contrary, this is the very first reason the Reformers opposed them. Roman Catholics indeed may believe in the NECESSITY of Jesus but not the SUFFICIENCY of Jesus Christ >> exactly the main point the Reformers and Augustine went out of his way to make. If one rejects the sufficiency of Jesus Christ then, by definition, they reject salvation by Christ alone. If Christ is not sufficient then something else must be added. The opposite of Christ alone. To Catholics what Jesus accomplished was not enough.. But I am thankful to God for sending his servant Augustine to be an early witness for sovereign grace to refute the errors of the Pelagians. … he clearly did believe in grace ALONE in the same way the Reformers did… and so does the early Council or Orange. But The Council of Trent contradicts everything written by Orange and Augustine on salvation.

I would encourage you to take your time to research on this, before you really choose to criticize Augustine too much. I admire your zeal but think you are missing the mark on this one. Augustine is a patriarch whose shoulder we all stand upon in the gospel of grace.

Augustine once said ‘To will is of nature, but to will aright is of grace.’ & ‘We know that God’s grace is not given to all men. To those to whom it is given it is given neither according to the merits of works, nor according to the merits of the will, but by free grace. To those to whom it is not given we know that it is because of God’s righteous judgment that it is not given.’

Thank you Maim for the time but I am sorry that I cannot continue this conversation further than here. May the Lord open eyes and ears to the gospel of grace. Shalom.

Clearly, with the arguments before us, we see an undeniable distinction between Augustinian soteriology and sola fide. I see the distinction, that Luther and others depart from Augustine. I was this close from saying, “Aha! I got it! Infused justification is where it’s at.” Indeed, I found R.E. Aguirre’s statement most agreeable:

The bottom line is that it is a no win situation for the Protestant. If he agrees with Luther then he must admit that the Protestant articulation of justification sola fidei is a novel interpretation with no historical precedent. On the other hand, if the Protestant goes the route of those such as Gerstner and claim that justification sola fideidoes have historical backing vis a vi Augustine, he can be summarily refuted by Augustine’s own primary writings as well as a mountain of Protestant scholars that have denied the Protestant formulation of justification on Augustine, (or any Catholic father for that matter).

I thought that was it. But here’s the problem in quoting Alister McGrath: His own stance on Augustine. James Swan responds to Catholic apologists on “theological novums.” The first link contains a shorter bit, the second goes into greater detail about the problem with citing McGrath’s work.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1854
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/08/alister-mcgrath-on-augustine-and.html

Of course McGrath thinks the Reformation departs from Augustine… but McGrath doesn’t believe that Augustine had or expressed the proper soteriology in the first place! If Reformed thought presents a theological novum from Augustine, okay!–McGrath has no issue with that because Augustine also brought a theological novum. Sola fide, while clearly departing from Augustinian soteriology as any Catholic apologist and McGrath himself would agree, turns out to become the proper theological formulation of Scriptural exegesis anyway.

To summarize:
Some Reformers (as the one I engaged in discussion with and quoted in length earlier) believe Augustine was a proto-Protestant who believed in imputed righteousness. Clearly, as shown in this discussion, their arguments fail to defend the Reformation.

However, others such as Alister McGrath and James Swan acknowledge that Reformed thought departs from Augustine, but they have no problem with it because they didn’t think Augustine had it right in the first place. And even if sola fide could not be found in patristic thought, Swan argues,
Sola Fide is based on grammatical and exegetical work on the Biblical text, not on the testimony of history.
I would eagerly contest with him on that as I happen to think imputed righteousness can be found neither in Patristic soteriology nor in critical exegesis of the Biblical text.

Bottom Line: You can’t just say Augustine wasn’t Reformed and call it a day (especially citing McGrath). While that might be true, what if Augustine had it wrong in the first place?; while the Reformation might appear as a “theological novum,” what if sola fide actually points to the right direction in Biblical exegesis regardless of the testimony of the Church Fathers? How do you argue against those who don’t care about showing their ancestry in Augustine or proving some sort of historical basis for imputed righteousness?

Sincerely,
Maim

As for the question regarding whether Muslims worship the same God Christians do, see my comment here.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

I suggest you read Vatican II’s Decree of Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio. Here is a relevant paragraph:

3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.

Protestants are our separated brothers; we are in imperfect communion with them, but they, too, by their valid baptisms, have been given the Holy Spirit by God.

I agree with Jared, but would say that you should speak with your own Bishop. If you are Catholic, then he is your prelate and has jurisdiction over you. Petition to him to take up your complaint against the catechism with the other prelates.

You make an argument common to Protestants: even Peter was rebuked by Paul. But your lesson by analogy only works if you are an equally fit judge over John Paul II as Paul was over Peter. Unless you are a bishop, the analogy does not work. What authority do you have to determine that a pope in exercise of his magisterial office is in error and sin? How does this differ in principle from my (hypothetically) saying that I will agree with Catholicism except for its view of the mass, which “is most abominably injurious” to Christ’s one sacrifice (to use the Westminster Confession)? Imagine the confusion and disunity we would have if any Christian could disbelieve any teaching of the Church because he personally has concluded the teaching is sin.

This is serious; I believe you are in great error, and you believe I am damned.

Peace in Christ,
Tom

Hey, we’re just speeking for the Church here. Don’t kill the messengers. This is *probably* not the place to vent your scruples over the catechism. If you have some problems with what the Church teaches, perhaps you should write a letter to the Pope, asking him.

As far as your argument goes, you are begging the question by continually asserting that Protestants are unbelievers, which is exactly what we are challenging (with the magisterium on our side of things). You cannot succeed in your position if this is your tactic.

And Jared and co. dare to call such unbelievers and offenders of God “Christians” and support them!?

We hold that not all Protestants are heretics, so yes. But, true unbelievers we wouldn’t call Christains–we would call Protestants Christians as long as they are not heretics. Dare to say Christ will deny himself of those who genuinely call on his name for mercy? I don’t think so. He is faithful and just to forgive our sins; God is not a respector of persons.

In Christ,
Jared B