Introduction

This brief post will show that St. Ambrose of Milan did not believe in salvation “by faith alone” as professed by the Reformers, condemned by the Council of Trent, and generally held by most Protestants today. There are two reasons I am focusing on St. Ambrose: 1. He is one of the few Church fathers who ever used the term “faith alone.”  2. There is a recent article published at First Things that claims that some of the things that he and St. John Chrysostom said seemed closer to the justification taught by the Reformers than by Rome.

The internet has given modern Christians unprecedented access to the early Church writings. In the past centuries, even up until quite recently, many of those writings would have been much more difficult to acquire. This is a great thing, but unfortunately it has also led to many people believing that merely copying and pasting lists of Church father quotes amounts to an actual knowledge of their beliefs. Catholic apologists have been guilty of this many times, of course, but it is possible to engage in such a practice and be correct.  For example, if two men disagree on whether the Church fathers believed in sola scriptura, and they both produce a ‘copy & paste’ list of quotations, one of them will be right and one will be wrong, even if it is the case that neither of them has a deep knowledge of what the fathers believed. Nevertheless, there are some quotations within the works of Sts. Ambrose and Chrysostom, and a few others, that can easily mislead those uneducated in these matters. And since those quotations are readily found on the internet these days, it seemed fitting to write this explanation.

St. Ambrose on Sola Fide

St. Ambrose speaks at length about the necessary and primary role of faith in salvation. This should not be surprising since almost all of the Church fathers did the same thing and so do the Scriptures. But the doctrine of sola fide, as condemned by the Catholic Church, is not that faith is primary in salvation but that faith is the only contributing cause of salvation (to the arbitrary exclusion of other causes). I say arbitrary because they who hold it affirm its exclusion of works of charity, but do not affirm that it excludes grace. 

How are we to sort out this kind of confusion? In my previous post, I explained the causes of salvation as taught by the Council of Trent and how they are not in conflict with each other. I highly recommend reading that article before continuing with this one because it easily explains how and why the fathers said some things that appear to be harmonious with sola fide and other things that did not, as we will see below regarding St. Ambrose. 

Among the internet lists of Church father quotes, St. Ambrose is often erroneously credited with the following:

This is the ordinance of God, that he which believeth in Christ should be saved without works, by faith only, freely receiving remission of his sins. – Spurious St. Ambrose

The true author of this quote was Hilary the Deacon,¹ who is also known to have held the heretical view that second baptism was required for e.g. Arians who wanted to re-enter the Church.² This brings out another important point: Even if it were shown that any given Church father did actually believe in sola fide as condemned by Trent, it would mean at most that he was in error.³ 

St. Ambrose does however say the following (which I have not seen on any of these lists): 

If you pardon an armed man who was able to fight, do you not pardon him in whom faith alone waged the battle?⁴

This quotation is certainly compatible with sola fide as believed by the Reformers, but it would also be compatible with the official Catholic position if “faith” in “faith alone” is not meant to be opposed to other necessary truths concerning salvation. For example, if he meant “faith alone” in a sense that excluded grace, he would be mistaken. If he meant it as opposed to charity, he would be mistaken. I made this point more thoroughly in my previous post where I also cited Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in support of the claim that there is a way of using “faith alone” that is not heretical.

WIth this in mind, how can we determine whether St. Ambrose means “faith alone” in the Protestant way that excludes such things as works of charity or whether he means it in the Catholic way?⁵ One option would be to assume that he means it in whichever way aligns with one’s own beliefs, to copy this quotation, and add it into a list of other fathers saying similar things, and then move along.  A better option, however, would be to study St. Ambrose himself and see if he ever said other things that would help us determine in which sense he meant “faith.” In fact, he does say other things that would help us understand what he meant here, as we will see below.  

First, by the time st. Ambrose writes, the Church already has a well-established dogma of soteriology that is thoroughly sacramental (including the infusion of grace rather than imputation) and the necessity of faith formed by love.⁶ This point alone is strong enough to prove that St. Ambrose could not have meant sola fide as taught by the Reformers unless he was a hypocrite. He would be actively serving, without critique or protest, as one of the Church’s most eminent bishops all the while believing that the Church was engaged in a sacramentalism that was essentially incompatible with the true gospel.⁷ But even if one does not know Church history enough to understand this point, the other writings of St. Ambrose himself help us understand that he cannot be using “faith alone” as a cause of salvation to the exclusion of certain other things like works of charity.

The above quote was taken from book I of his treatise on repentance. His primary audience is a group known as the rigorists who were the heirs of the Novation schism. These rigorists claimed that mortal sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven. St. Ambrose argues throughout the treatise that, on the contrary, Jesus gave the priests authority to forgive any sin and he urges his fellow clergy to grant absolution to the penitent so long as sufficient penance accompanies it. Again, this context alone shows that whatever St. Ambrose believed about justification, it was something quite different than the sola fide of the Reformers. Luther’s sola fide clearly has no room for post baptismal forgiveness of sins mediated by a priest.

But if that were still not enough to put the issue to rest, let’s examine a small selection of other things he is known to have written. This selection will be a mere representation; it will not be exhaustive by any means. While I do not know of any other place where St. Ambrose appears to lean Protestant, there are more quotations of strong Catholic implication than what I will produce here. In other words, the short Protestant leaning list above (one quotation) is, as far as I know, exhaustive. This longer Catholic leaning one below is only a sample.  

In the very same treatise he writes:

He calls each blessed, both him whose sins are remitted by the font, and him whose sin is covered by good works. For he who repents ought not only to wash away his sin by his tears, but also to cover and hide his former transgressions by amended deeds, that sin may not be imputed to him.⁸

Further in the preface of book V on the Christian Faith, in the context of the parable of the talents, he concludes his opening commentary with the following:

This is the word of the Lord, this is the precious talent, whereby you are redeemed. This money must often be seen on the tables of souls, in order that by constant trading the sound of the good coins may be able to go forth into every land, by the means of which eternal life is purchased.⁹

According to his explanation of the parable, the talents (salvation) received from God (by grace) do not, by their mere reception, guarantee salvation (eternal life). After receiving the gift it is necessary to use the gifts properly or else they cannot “purchase” eternal life. One might argue that this is not the correct interpretation of the parable but that is not the point. The point is that this is St. Ambrose’s interpretation and no one who believed that salvation was by faith alone, in the way that the Reformers believed it, could possibly have such an interpretation. 

Even some kind of Reformed nuance could not save this interpretation in favor of faith alone. For example, perhaps one would suggest that the lack of good works is mere evidence that the servant never actually received the gift. But since St. Ambrose is commenting on this particular parable, such a move is impossible. This is because the parable would make no sense at all if we supposed that the servant had not actually received the gift. The point is that the servant is being condemned precisely because he did receive the gift and then did not use it well. Therefore, St. Ambrose explains, this means that the servant will not be able to purchase eternal life. And again, if someone were to try and wiggle out of this with some other clever sophistry, he says elsewhere even more explicitly: 

We have also noted already that the blessedness of eternal life is the reward for good works.¹⁰

Let these three quotations suffice.

Conclusion

We can easily fall into the trap of uncritically accepting propositions that align with our strongly held convictions. For example, when we hear a proposition that paints an opposing political party in a bad light, we are quick to believe it, even without good reason. I think most of us have, at one time or another, too quickly believed a proposition only to find out later that we were wrong. The stronger one’s personal conviction in a particular ideology, the easier it will be for them to fall into this error. 

For example, I might believe that the state of North Dakota has a larger population than the state of South Dakota. But I probably don’t believe this very strongly or have much of a “conviction” about it. A simple investigation, or perhaps even a statement from someone who seems to know, is probably going to be enough to overturn my conviction. I am also not likely to scour the internet for quotations or claims supporting my position. If I did find some sources that seemed to support me, I would probably be more likely to investigate their credibility. On the other hand, when it comes to politics, I am less likely to do all of this because my political conviction is probably much stronger than my conviction about state populations. But since our religious convictions are the strongest of all, it usually takes very little evidence to convince us that we are already correct about what we believe. This is why these lists of quotations from Church fathers are popular and are frequently used by people who do not understand them. 

We have seen that St. Ambrose cannot legitimately be used to support the doctrine of sola fide, as understood by the Reformers. This is for the following reasons:

1. He is an eminent bishop of the Church operating within a sacramental framework that includes things that the Reformers viewed as incompatible with sola fide (including ongoing penance, alms-giving as meritorious, infused righteousness, etc.)
2. He believes that it is necessary for salvation that post-baptismal sins be forgiven by priests.
3. His own writings in several places illustrate that he holds views that are contrary to sola fide.

Finally, to reiterate, as I mentioned in this post and the previous one, it is possible to say that we are saved “by faith alone” in a non-heretical way. So where we find the phrase mentioned in the fathers (and we do find it, albeit sparingly) we might very much expect that they mean it in this way rather than in the heretical way that was condemned by the Council of Trent. Now, one might already guess that if we examine the other Church fathers who used the term in the same way we just examined St. Ambrose, we will come to the same conclusion about them (that is, that they are not using the term in the way that the Reformers used it).¹¹ One would be correct in this assumption. I do not intend to go through every Church father in this manner but because he was mentioned by the post in First Things and because his mentions of “faith alone” are most numerous among the fathers, I do intend to examine St. John Chrysostom next. For the other fathers, the skeptic will have to either do their own honest research or trust the scholarly consensus that the early Church did not believe in the sola fide of the Reformers.¹²

1. Bray, G. L. (2015). The Books of Homilies: A Critical Edition. Cambridge: James Clarke. Sermon 3, fn.17 [↩]
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_the_Deacon [↩]
3. Take for example, St. Thomas Aquinas apparently denying the Immaculate Conception. This means that he erred on that point and means nothing more. [↩]
4. St. Ambrose, On Repentance 1.5.25 [↩]
5. Note: When the Reformed say “faith alone” they mean that faith is the “alone instrument” but it is not “alone in the person justified.” per Westminster Confession of Faith 11.2; i.e. they confess that other saving graces are there too. [↩]
6. Reformed also affirm that saving faith must be formed by love although they deny the infusion of God’s justice, and they reject the sacramental soteriology of the early Church. See Dr. David Anders on Tradition I and Sola Fide [↩]
7. See also Alister McGrath as cited in the previous article affirming that the justification as understood by the early Church was nestled within a thoroughly works-righteousness system. [↩]
8. St. Ambrose On Repentance 2.5.35 [↩]
9. St. Ambrose De Fide Book V, Prologue.15 [↩]
10. St. Ambrose On the Duties of the Clery 2.3.9 [↩]
11. See this post “Salvation from the Perspective of the Early Church Fathers” for more examples from the Church fathers. Also see “St. Irenaeus on Justification” [↩]
12. See especially: McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) [↩]