"The doctrine by which the church stands or falls."

It's also a universal negative that there were no men on the moon in 800AD - you can't demonstrate that there were...but everyone accepts that as fact. I can show you that the doctrine of salvation preached in 800AD was not sola fide - I'm just asking you very simply to show that it was sola fide, as that is what you apparently believe.

 

The absence of technology requires by the absence of a man on the moon by deductive reasoning. You have no such logic to fall back on. You cannot read the minds of people back in 800.
You have made another logical fallacy in your statement above, and I quote:

"Everyone accepts that as fact. I can show you that the doctrine of salvation in 800 A.D. was not sola fide.
You reasoning is that you can show me just as thoroughly as "everyone accepts that as fact....that the doctrine of salvation in 800 A.D. was no sola fide. Here in your comparison you have used a universal, an absolute. If even one person believed otherwise your statement is false. You cannot prove this. It is impossible. You don't even have the writings of all the preachers of that time. You are taking a totally illogical unprovable stance.

 

I repeat my request - show me the evidence that people in 800AD believed sola fide

 

I don't have to do that. That onus is on you. We assume that there is unless otherwise proved false. You cannot prove that false because you are arguing from an illogical position. You cannot prove that there were not.

 

I'm not sure that's how historical arguments work. If it did, then anyone can invent any scenario despite lack of documentation or other historical evidence and just say: "Oh yeah? I don't need to prove my position with any positive evidence. I just assume it to be true! The burden on you is to prove otherwise"
And so, for example, the idea that the original church was Mormon is equally as valid as the idea that there existed Christians who taught sola fide during the first millenium and a half of the Church--there's no positive evidence for either.

 

It is not a matter of how historical arguments work. It is a matter of how any debate works. Matt worked himself into a corner when he used a logical fallacy as a premise.
He said: "No-one was preaching sola fide in the year 800 A.D."
It is not my responsibility to prove his claim.
His statement is a universal negative which is unproveable.
I can state that there the oldest, smallest, hunchback, of the Waldenses in southeastern France was still preaching sola fide in the year 800 A.D., and Matt could not prove me wrong. He doesn't have the means. The burden of proof remains on him to demonstrate that no one preached sola fide in the year 800, just as he stated. I didn't make the statement. He did.

 

Are you saying that nobody in 800 AD believed in Heb 11 and Romans 1:17?

Sola Fide is not believed by those who do not know the power of the Faith by Holy Spirit.

If anyone has the Faith by Holy Spirit, it produces the Works.

Jesus said the Good tree bears good fruits.

What Epistle James said is that, if anyone doesn't show the good works, he or she is not a true believer.

Many misunderstand James meant " Faith+Works" but point there is the Faith producing the works, the living Faith, not the dead faith by the fake Christians.

 

No, on the contrary, if you are making an assertion - that someone was preaching sola fide in 800, then the onus is on you to produce the contemporaneous documentary evidence; otherwise all we are left with is your assumption that people must have been preaching it because that fits your own doctrinal presuppositions and your interpretation of Scripture and that therefore people were preaching it. In which case, my question stands - show me. The same goes to you, Eliyahu.All I have said is that there is no evidence of sola fide in 800 but plenty of evidence around that time of the soteriology which Christians were preaching. Armed with that, it is incumbent on the two of you (and anyone else who wants to have a go) to produce evidence to the contrary to support your assertions. That evidence should be (a) documented and (b) date from around that time, in order to be credible.

 

Then you would make a good Catholic, or at the very least a good Anglican, for that is what they teach - your above statement is a denial of sola fide.

 

So, are you saying that nobody among Waldensians, Albigenes, Brethren, Montanists, Donatists believed in Romans 1:17 and Heb 11 ?

 

I'm saying that there is no way that one can conflate the beliefs of these disparate groups, since they all believe(d) such very different things.

RB, (a) I'm not Roman Catholic, (b) RC soteriology is one of grace producing faith and good works; I don't see that to be very different at face value at least from a 'live' faith producing good works.

 

They were Bible believers while RCC porhibit the people from reading Bible, and you cannot prove that they didn't believe Heb 11 and Romans 1:17.

But we can find that they rejected Infant Baptism as we read thru Milevi Council, that they rejected Purgatory and the clergy system.

This report by the Inquisitor Reinerius may not be all accurate because he wrote from the point of RCC and there may be some distortion. However, he admit some points despite he disagreed with Albigenes:

Some of the excerpts are here.

First They say that the Romish Church, is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but a church of malignants and that it apostatized under Sylvester, when the poison of temporalities was infused into the h. And they say, that they are the church of Christ, because they observe both in word, and deed, the doctrine of Christ, of the Gospel, and of the Apostles.
Their second error is that all vices and sins are in the church, and that they alone live righteously.
That scarcely anyone in the church, but themselves, preserves the evangelical doctrine.
That they are the true poor in spirit, and suffer persecution for righteousness and faith.
That they are the Church of Jesus Christ.
That the Church of Rome is the Harlot in the Apocalypse, on account of its superfluous decoration which the Eastern Church does not regard.
That they despise all the statutes of the Church, because they are heavy and numerous.
That the Pope is the head of all errors.
That the Prelates are Scribes; and the Monks, Pharisees.
That the Pope and all Bishops, are homicides on account of wars.
That we are not to obey Prelates; but only God.
That no one is greater than another in the church. Matt. 23. "All of you are brethren."
That no one ought to bow the knee before a priest. Rev. ii. where the Angel says tojohn "See thou do it not."
That tithes are not to be given, because first fruits were not given to the church.

That the clergy ought not to have possessions; Dent. xviii. "The Priests and all the tribe of Levi, shall not have part and inheritance with the people of Israel, because they eat the sacrifices, and they shall receive nothing else."
That the clergy, and monks, ought not to have Prebends.
That the Bishops and Abbots ought not to have royal rights.
That the land, and the people, are not to be divided into parts.
That it is a bad thing to found and endow churches and monasteries.
That wills are not to be made in favor of Churches-also, that no one ought to be a tenant of the church-also, they condemn all the clergy for idleness, saying that they ought to work with their hands ( 2 Thess 3:8-12) as the Apostles did-also, they reprobate titles of dignity such as Pope, Bishops, etc.-also, that no one is to be forced into belief-also , that they make no account of all ecclesiastical offices-also, that they care nothing for ecclesiastical privileges-also, they despise the immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons and things-also, they condemn Councils, Synods, and Assemblies-also, they say that all parochial rights are invention-also, they say that monastic rules are the traditions of the Pharisees.


http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/reinerius.html

Matt,
Can you imagine, how much they needed to be so expert in the Bible teaching as to resist those doctrines of RCC ?

We can tell Albigenes must have been very much expert and they read the Bible so much that they could confront RCC Biblically all the time.

Can you point out any of problems with their belief reported by the Inquisitor of Roman Catholic who himself once was a Albigene before?

They read Revelation, Matthew 23 for the Brethren, 2 Thess 3 for the work of the clergy, Ephesians, 2 Cor 8-9 for the tithing, 1 Peter 2:5-9 and Rev 1:6 for the priesthood, and many more portion of Bible.

Do you think they didn't believe Romans 1:17 and Heb 11?

I am very much sure that if the Albigenes were given the chance of advocating themselves, they would have spoken much more clearly and correctly, and Biblically than the Inquisitor described.

 

Matt,

Please remember that Reinerius reported the above in 1254 AD before he died in 1259. Is this enough to call it the documents before 1517?

He reported that Albigenes existed since the time of Sylvester or since the Apostles.

The Inquisitor Reinerius, who died in 1259, has left it on record: "Concern the Sects of Ancient Heretics, observe, that there have been more than 70: all of which; except the sects of the Manicheans and the Arians and the Rucanrians and the Leonists which have Infected Germany, have through the favor of God, been destroyed. Among all these sects, which either still EXISTS or which have formerly EXISTED, there is not one more Pernicious to the church than that of the Leonists: and this for three reasons... "

The Actual Truth


First, it should be noted that despite the Catholic Church's "bias" against these alleged Christian pilgrims, Nate doesn't hesitate to quote one of them when it seems to suit his purpose. However, the quote of Reinerius is incomplete, and therefore misleading. From the full context it becomes clear that Reinerius was only reporting on the mistaken belief of some people; he did not hold this belief himself. This is a fact admitted by modern-day Waldensian scholars - a church which, by the way, still exists and looks nothing like the 2x2's. (1) Here is the actual quote from Reinerius' report:

"For some say that it has existed from time of Sylvester, some from the time of the apostles." (2) ​

Reinerius, who was a former member of the Albigenses, knew quite well what various sects claimed, as seen in this 1254 A.D. report on them:

 

The doctrine of justification is God's acceptance and recieving of sinners by accounting and accepting them as righteous. This is done, not by infusing righteousness in them, not by anything done by them, but for Christ's sake alone. Nor is it an imputation of faith itself, the act of believing, or any other act of obedience that is their righteousness, but it is the active obeidence of Christ, it is HIS righteousness that is imputed to them and on account of Christ's righteousness (an alien righteousness) that they are declared just.

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Rom 3:24-26


GE

This is not true, or false, nevertheless is not true, because not the full truth, Quote, "Nor is it (justification) an imputation of faith itself, the act of believing, or any other act of obedience". The Scriptures given, twice imply faith. Justification is God's Effective, work "to us-ward", and not until 'to us-ward', is it "the righteousness, namely, of God!"

The above 'definition' also comes short, in that, one, it does not properly distinguish the 'dogma' or doctrine of justification and justification as such; and two, in that it speaks as if separable, of faith as the gift of God, and "our act of believing"; and three, in that it does not distinguish between "our act of believing", and "any other act of obedience". Faith depends on no act of ours. Then the explanation falls short in that it identifies "any ... act of obedience" with righteousness. Righteousness never, "is their (or 'our') righteousness", but remains "the righteousness namely of God", no matter what - accounted, imputed or infused or accounted or in act or of act -- never is man's -- it remains the righteousness through faith in Christ by grace.

 

Is it your Claim that God CAN not use the salvation mechanism of the Gospel to SAVE Joe if JOE does not read scripture for himself and know it enough to save himself?

in Christ,

Bob

 

I am not arguing that Paul knew how the Gospel works but Jesus did not.

Is that what you are arguing??

in Christ,

Bob

 

My point is this: if you regard the preaching of the Gospel and the reading of the Scriptures as an essential part of that mechanism - as many here, including I presume you, do (otherwise what's the point of reading and preaching from the Scriptures each week?) - and if it is claimed that the True Gospel(TM) is justification by faith alone and that the Scriptures were denied to Joe, then my question is this: given that we have no evidence of sola fide being preached in 800 AD and Joe couldn't have access to the Scriptures, then how was he saved?

 

No, i'm saying you have to read Paul, and Jesus, and James, together, rather than quote each in isolation to the others.

 

To add to Matt’s statement, strictly speaking, Salvation is not of faith alone, nor is it of works alone, but of Christ alone. Christ gives us both the gift of faith and the gift of good works, that we might use them both to live them out to fulfill our calling as God’s workmanship.

Of course the evangelical protestant response would be; what’s the difference between working good works as a workman designed to do them, from earning merit.

The Orthodox response would be that the Church doesn’t see the works we do for God as being meritorious in that way. That’s an innovation of Protestantism and not a part of Orthodox theology. Orthodoxy see it as simply fulfilling what God has created us to be.

Faith without works is dead.

Evangelical Protestant: “Can you be saved by good works”?
Orthodox: “Can you be saved by dead faith”?
-