The Gospel Was Not Discovered in 1517

Posted on by

Christians sometimes assume that the language of justification by faith alone (sola fide) became clear during the Reformation. But long before Luther, we find early Christian writers speaking in strikingly Pauline terms about salvation as God’s gift, received by faith, not earned by works.

To be sure, later generations coined concise slogans and technical vocabulary to defend the truth more precisely. The early church writers did not use those later labels. But the underlying doctrine is the same: again and again, they deny justification by our own works and point to God’s saving initiative in Christ, received through faith.

Below are several verbatim quotations from early Christian sources (with primary citations), followed by two careful, expanded summaries (not verbatim quotations) from later patristic commentators often cited in discussions of justification.

Clement of Rome (c. AD 96–100)

“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 for ever and ever. Amen.”
Source: 1 Clement 32:4 (Roberts and Donaldson translation). (ccel.org)

Polycarp (c. AD 69–155/160)

“Though ye saw Him not, ye believe with joy unutterable and full of glory; unto which joy many desire to enter in; forasmuch as ye know that it is by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.”
Source: Polycarp, To the Philippians 1.3 (Lightfoot translation as reproduced online. Wording varies slightly across editions). (earlychristianwritings.com)

Epistle to Diognetus (anonymous early Christian writing, 2nd century, chapter 9)

“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: Epistle to Diognetus 9. (newadvent.org)

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. AD 130–202)

“For faith towards God justifies a man…”
Source: Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4 (section numbering can vary by edition; see the phrase in the linked online text). (newadvent.org)

Two Expanded Summaries (Not Verbatim Quotations)

The two entries below are not presented as word-for-word quotations. They are expanded summaries of the theological emphasis in context, commonly discussed in patristic studies and traced in the secondary source cited at the end.

Origen (c. AD 185–254)

Origen, commenting on Paul (especially Romans), argues that a sinner’s acceptance with God is grounded in God’s saving action in Christ and is received through faith, not achieved by works, whether moral achievement or the works of the law. He treats justification as something God grants to the one who believes, and he appeals to the thief on the cross as a vivid illustration: a man with no time to present a catalog of deeds is nevertheless received by Christ through faith. Origen also presses the justice of God, insisting that God does not simply wave away guilt, but provides a mediator who deals with sin so that God can justify sinners without compromising His righteousness.

Marius Victorinus (c. AD 290–364)

Marius Victorinus, writing as an early Latin commentator on Paul, emphasizes that righteousness and salvation do not arise from law-keeping as the ground of acceptance, but are given by God through faith in Christ. In his handling of texts like Ephesians 2, he underscores Paul’s purpose of shutting the door on boasting: salvation is God’s gift, not a human achievement. Victorinus presents faith as the means by which believers receive what God provides in Christ, and he treats good works as the fitting fruit of grace rather than the basis of justification.

Secondary Source (for the two summaries above)

Nathan Busenitz and John MacArthur, Long before Luther: Tracing the Heart of the Gospel from Christ to the Reformation (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2017), 169–171.

What John Calvin Said About Romans 7

Posted on by

Romans 7 is a much-debated passage in the New Testament. Is the person Paul describes in verses 14–25 (the one who cries out, “the good I want to do I do not do, but the evil I do not want to do, this I keep on doing”) a believer or an unbeliever? A regenerate Christian or someone still under the power of sin without the Spirit?

John Calvin had a clear, carefully argued answer. And in an age when his words are frequently paraphrased, misattributed, or fabricated outright, it is worth going back to what he actually wrote in his Commentary on Romans.

The five quotes below are drawn verbatim from the Beveridge translation and can be verified at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL). No paraphrase. No composite. Just Calvin.

Quote 1 Romans 7 Describes the Regenerate, Not the Natural Man

Calvin begins by dismantling the interpretation, common in his day and still heard today, that Paul is describing the experience of someone apart from grace. His position is direct:

But Paul, as I have said already, does not here set before us simply the natural man, but in his own person describes what is the weakness of the faithful, and how great it is.

John Calvin, Commentary on Romans, on Romans 7:15 (Beveridge translation)

This is Calvin’s interpretive anchor for the entire passage. The struggle Paul describes is not the frustrated moral effort of someone without the Spirit, but the interior battle of a genuine believer. The conflict itself is evidence of regeneration, not a sign of its absence.

Quote 2 Even Augustine Changed His Mind

One of the most striking features of Calvin’s commentary here is his appeal to Augustine’s own intellectual history. Augustine initially read Romans 7 as describing the unregenerate person, and then reversed that position entirely. Calvin records it this way:

Augustine was for a time involved in the common error; but after having more clearly examined the passage, he not only retracted what he had falsely taught, but in his first book to Boniface, he proves, by many strong reasons, that what is said cannot be applied to any but to the regenerate.

John Calvin, Commentary on Romans, on Romans 7:15 (Beveridge translation)

Calvin is pointing his readers to Augustine’s Epistle to Boniface, where the great North African bishop walked back his earlier view. The regenerate reading of Romans 7 is not a Reformation invention; it is the conclusion that careful engagement with the text drove even Augustine to embrace.

Quote 3 The Carnal Man Has No Real Inner Conflict

To sharpen the distinction between the regenerate and the unregenerate, Calvin makes a pointed contrast. The person without the Spirit does not experience the deep, internal war of Romans 7, because there is nothing in them to resist sin:

It has therefore been justly said, that the carnal man runs headlong into sin with the approbation and consent of the whole soul; but that a division then immediately begins for the first time, when he is called by the Lord and renewed by the Spirit.

John Calvin, Commentary on Romans, on Romans 7:15–17 (Beveridge translation)

This is both a theological distinction and a pastoral one. If you are fighting against your sin, truly fighting and not merely feeling guilty, that battle is itself a mark of the Spirit’s presence. The unconverted soul does not war against its lusts; it flows with them.

Quote 4 The Divided Heart of the Godly

Here is Calvin at his most pastorally alive. He paints a portrait of the Christian life that is honest about its difficulty without abandoning its hope:

The godly, on the other hand, in whom the regeneration of God is begun, are so divided, that with the chief desire of the heart they aspire to God, seek celestial righteousness, hate sin, and yet they are drawn down to the earth by the relics of their flesh: and thus, while pulled in two ways, they fight against their own nature, and nature fights against them.

John Calvin, Commentary on Romans, on Romans 7:15 (Beveridge translation)

The phrase relics of their flesh is Calvin’s term for the remaining corruption that persists in the believer throughout this life. Note what he says: the chief desire of the regenerate heart is toward God, toward righteousness, toward hating sin. The downward drag is real, but it is not the defining direction of the soul. This is the Christian struggle, not Christian defeat.

Quote 5 Regeneration Only Begins in This Life

Calvin’s final word in this section is a sober but clarifying one. It explains why the struggle never fully resolves on this side of glory:

For regeneration only begins in this life; the relics of the flesh which remain, always follow their own corrupt propensities, and thus carry on a contest against the Spirit.

John Calvin, Commentary on Romans, on Romans 7:15–17 (Beveridge translation)

Sanctification is real, but it is not complete. Every believer carries within them the beginning of new life and the remnants of the old. The tension between these two (the Spirit’s work and the flesh’s resistance) is not a sign that something has gone wrong. It is the ordinary shape of the Christian life until Christ returns or calls us home.

Why These Quotes Matter

In a time when Calvin is frequently quoted from secondary sources, paraphrased without attribution, or cited from passages that have been fabricated entirely, going back to the primary source matters. The five statements above represent Calvin’s actual voice: precise, pastoral, and deeply grounded in the text of Scripture.

The regenerate reading of Romans 7 is not simply a Reformed distinctive. It is the conclusion that careful exegetes from Augustine to Calvin to the Westminster Divines arrived at when they took the passage seriously. More than that, it is a reading that has brought genuine comfort to struggling believers for centuries, the comfort of knowing that the conflict you feel is not evidence that God has abandoned you, but that he has begun his work in you.

The fight is the proof.

Primary Source All five quotes are drawn verbatim from: John Calvin, Commentary on Romans, on Romans 7:14–25, Beveridge translation. Available freely online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library: ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38

If Jesus returned, where is He?

Posted on by

Article by Jason L. Bradfield:

Hyper-preterism repeatedly stumbles over one unavoidable question: if Christ “returned” in AD 70, where is He now?

The New Testament presents the return of Christ as the personal, visible appearing of the same Jesus who ascended. Yet no one in AD 70 saw the risen Lord descend bodily from heaven. There was no public manifestation of the incarnate Son, no resurrection of the dead, no consummated presence of Christ dwelling bodily with His people forever. If that was the return, what exactly returned? And where is Jesus presently?

The difficulty is not rhetorical. It is biblical.

In Acts 1:9-11, the disciples watched Him ascend. The angels declared, “This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (ESV). The emphasis falls on identity and manner. This Jesus. The same one. The embodied, risen Lord. The departure was visible and bodily. The promise of return is framed in those same terms.

Acts 3:21 states that heaven “must receive him until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets” (ESV). Christ is received into heaven. He remains there. There is an “until.” That language presupposes ongoing bodily absence followed by a future appearing.

Jesus Himself structured hope around this reality. “I go to prepare a place for you… I will come again and will take you to myself” (John 14:2-3, ESV). In John 16:7 He said, “It is to your advantage that I go away” (ESV). There is a real going away. The promise of coming again depends on it.

At the same time, He assures his disciples, “I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20, ESV). How can He both go away and remain with his people? The only coherent answer is the distinction between His natures. According to His humanity, He is absent and in heaven. According to His divinity, He is present everywhere.

Colossians 3:1 directs believers to seek the things above, “where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God” (ESV). Hebrews 9:24 declares that “Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf” (ESV). His mediatorial ministry is exercised from heaven. Scripture consistently speaks of His bodily absence.

The Reformed tradition did not invent this distinction. It articulated it faithfully. The Heidelberg Catechism explains:

Question 46

How dost thou understand these words, “he ascended into heaven”?

That Christ, in sight of his disciples, was taken up from earth into heaven; and that he continues there for our interest, until he comes again to judge the quick and the dead.

Question 47

Is not Christ then with us even to the end of the world, as he has promised?

Christ is very man and very God; with respect to his human nature, he is no more on earth; but with respect to his Godhead, majesty, grace and spirit, he is at no time absent from us.

Question 48

But if his human nature is not present, wherever his Godhead is, are not then these two natures in Christ separated from one another?

Not as all, for since the Godhead is illimitable and omnipresent, it must necessarily follow that the same is beyond the limits of the human nature he assumed, and yet is nevertheless in this human nature, and remains personally united to it. (1)

This is nothing more than careful biblical theology. Christ continues in heaven according to His human nature. He is never absent according to his Godhead. The natures are neither confused nor separated.

Once that framework is in place, the meaning of “return” becomes clear. To return is to go back to a place that was left. The divine nature never left. God is omnipresent. There can be no “return” of deity in a spatial sense. If someone speaks of Christ’s return as a non-bodily event, what exactly is returning? His divine essence? That would imply prior absence and movement, which contradicts the very nature of God.

A meaningful return must concern the incarnate person according to His human nature.

This is where the significance of the name “Jesus” becomes unavoidable. The angel declared, “You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21, ESV). The name belongs to the incarnate Son, the one born of Mary. It is the name of the God-man.

After the resurrection and ascension, Scripture continues to use that name. Peter proclaims, “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36, ESV). Paul writes long after the ascension, “There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5, ESV). Not was. Is. He remains man.

The incarnation was not temporary. Hebrews 7:24-25 teaches that He holds his priesthood permanently and always lives to make intercession (ESV). His ongoing mediatorial work presupposes his continuing humanity. The one who intercedes is still the God-man.

To deny a future bodily return inevitably pressures this doctrine. If Christ’s humanity does not return, if there is no future visible appearing of the incarnate Son, then what has become of the man Christ Jesus? If His deity never departed and cannot return, and His humanity does not return, the word return becomes meaningless.

More seriously, the permanence of the incarnation is undermined. To confess that Jesus Christ remains very man and very God is not optional or secondary. It is essential to the Christian faith. It safeguards the gospel itself. If the incarnation is treated as a temporary phase rather than an abiding reality, then the identity of Jesus is altered.

The New Testament holds these truths together with clarity. The one who ascended is the one who will come again. The one who was taken up will return in the same way. He continues in heaven for our interest until He comes to judge the living and the dead. His deity is omnipresent. His humanity is exalted and located. His person is one.

So the question remains simple and decisive. If Jesus “returned” in AD 70, where is He now? Scripture says He is in heaven according to His human nature, awaiting the appointed day of His appearing. Any system that cannot account for that absence and that promised bodily return is not merely adjusting eschatology. It is tampering with the identity of Jesus Himself.

1 – Historic Creeds and Confessions. 1997. Electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Lexham Press.