It seems the quotation from Origen is not relevant to the subject (let alone the denial of Christ’s unique salvific work this implies it to be), since the full quote is: “It may be that as we have been purchased by the precious blood of Jesus who has received a name above all names, so some will be ransomed by the precious blood of martyrs; for the martyrs themselves are exalted higher than they would have been if they had been justified only and not also become martyrs.” Origen’s meaning by the word “ransom” is not clear, and the tenor of the statement is only that martyrs shall on account of their martyrdom receive a greater reward. The entire context of this statement is non-soteriological. The most charitable and orthodox interpretation I can see (which may be more than Origen deserves, all things considered) is that martyrdom could spur onlookers to repentance and faith.

Now, concerning post-baptismal sin, there are two senses in which to consider it, 1. Regarding the sinner’s state before God, 2. Regarding the public state of the sinner before the Church. In the first place the solution to the problem is not sola fide, but lifelong baptismal efficacy, so that my baptism avails the sins not only of the time of its administration but for all of my days (faith’s relevance being the means through which baptism is efficacious for me at all). The reformers often chastised the so-called sacrament of penance because it stole from baptism and granted it too little efficacy. In the second, public repentance is most necessary for one whose sin has scandalized the Church, who must prove himself, not to God but to the Church if he would be restored. This is especially true in the case of apostates.

The first Pope was clueless on the question of God being able to save people who committed post-baptismal sins or not (Acts 8:22), perhaps Jesus should've clarified that while he still walked the Earth.

>>18434319
Actually Origen directly compares the acts of martyrdom to the Leviticial priest in the Old Testament in the Exhoratio, writing
>And consider whether, just as the Savior’s [baptism] brought purification to the world, the baptism of martyrdom may also serve as purification for many. For just as those who provided ministry at the altar according to the Law of Moses believed that they obtained remission of [the peoples’] sins by the blood of goats and bulls (Heb. 9:13, 10:4; Ps. 50:13), so the souls of those “who have been beheaded for the witness of Jesus” (Rev. 20:4, 6:9) do not minister in vain at the heavenly altar, but provide the remission of sins for those who pray.
One cannot help but to conclude from this that Origen views martyrdom as a kind of propitiation for sins applicable to others, even as Jesus's was. Writing further he states:
> ἅμα δὲ καὶ γινώσκομεν ὅτι, ὥσπερ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς θυσίαν ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς, οὕτως οἱ ἱερεῖς, ὧν ἐστιν ἀρχιερεὺς, θυσίαν ἑαυτοὺς προσφέρουσι·
>And at the same time we know that, just as the high priest Jesus Christ took up himself as a sacrifice, these priests (the martyrs), of whom he is high priest, offer themselves as a sacrifice.

>>18434319
>Now, concerning post-baptismal sin, there are two senses in which to consider it, 1. Regarding the sinner’s state before God, 2. Regarding the public state of the sinner before the Church. In the first place the solution to the problem is not sola fide, but lifelong baptismal efficacy, so that my baptism avails the sins not only of the time of its administration but for all of my days (faith’s relevance being the means through which baptism is efficacious for me at all). The reformers often chastised the so-called sacrament of penance because it stole from baptism and granted it too little efficacy. In the second, public repentance is most necessary for one whose sin has scandalized the Church, who must prove himself, not to God but to the Church if he would be restored. This is especially true in the case of apostates.
But this position is contrary to the position of Fathers like Tertullian (De Paenitentia) and Cyprian (On the Lapsed), who see penances as directly appeasing God, as acts of satisfaction. Since we are on the topic of martyrdom, in his seminal work "The Theology of Tertullian", R.E. Roberts writes this of Tertullian's view:
>The honourable esteem in which martyrdom was held is reflected in the view taken of martyrdom as a second baptism. The grounds for calling it so were that Jesus had said, 'I have a baptism to be baptized with,' when He was already baptized, and that John had described Him as coming by water and the blood. Further, the water and the blood that issued from the Saviour's side were figures of baptism by water and blood. Martyrdom was a form of baptism which obviated the necessity of prior baptism, and which restored to the sufferer the privileges of a baptism which he had lost.

>>18434288
UH OH! You made the local Calvinist Prot mad OP!

>>18434374
(It is interesting that Cyprian in this treatise labors to deny what in your quotes Origen affirms, namely that the martyrs save anyone else) Now first of all, these writers are not perfectly orthodox on this subject, as it was by their heavy-handed influence that the Donatist schism would arise, who took them as their fathers. Tertullian expressly taught that the baptized had only one opportunity to repent, for which reason he opposed infant baptism, since he feared they would be damned if baptized too early and given a long life to ruin it. Second, their intention was to impress upon their readers a fear of God, detestation for sin and desire for repentance, and this is a laudable goal. Thirdly, the authority and source of our religion is not the private opinions of men, but the words of God.

>>18434288
>>18434370
>Fathers like Origen
You know Origenism was condemned as a heresy by the ecumenical councils right

>>18434288
Wtf does rigorism mean? I'm somewhat educated in theology but I'd like a definition.

>>18434562
>(It is interesting that Cyprian in this treatise labors to deny what in your quotes Origen affirms, namely that the martyrs save anyone else)
Cyprian's concern was about the laxity with which indulgences were being issues for the lapsi, he wasn't in opposition to the theology behind them. "We believe" he says, "indeed, that the merits of martyrs and the works of the righteous are of great avail with the Judge; but that will be when the day of judgment shall come; when, after the conclusion of this life and the world, His people shall stand before the tribunal of Christ." But really this is beside the point, Cyprian being only one treasure among many of the developing theology during this time surrounding the issue of grave sin, none of which offered a solution or found in the rule of faith "justification by faith alone."

>>18434562
>Now first of all, these writers are not perfectly orthodox on this subject, as it was by their heavy-handed influence that the Donatist schism would arise, who took them as their fathers.
The heretics of all kinds of parties took to themselves many Fathers for their own, this isn't unique to the rigorist parties. This isn't surprising because they've been authoritative to most Christians throughout the centuries.
>Tertullian expressly taught that the baptized had only one opportunity to repent, for which reason he opposed infant baptism, since he feared they would be damned if baptized too early and given a long life to ruin it.
I am aware of this, his rigorist attitudes are what lead the mainstream Church to develop its doctrine of absolution and penance. What's important though about Tertullian is not so much his rigorist position but more so how he provides clear and early evidence for the existing Church custom of exomologesis, for which he says, "whereby we confess our sins to the Lord, not indeed as if He were ignorant of them, but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is settled, of confession repentance is born; by repentance God is appeased." It was not something he or others necessarily introduced in spite of this or that thing, it was something done from a very early date and with which someone who was a rigorist like Tertullian had to contend with. Tertullian, one of the earliest Fathers who speaks about the Rule of Faith, conspiciously fails to mention that a doctrine like sola fide could be found in its deposit.
>Thirdly, the authority and source of our religion is not the private opinions of men, but the words of God.
Amen. And these words are transmitted by God's faithful servants in the Church, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."

>>18434643
>This isn't surprising because they've been authoritative to most Christians throughout the centuries.
These two in particular were more so authoritative in Africa than elsewhere.
>he provides clear and early evidence for the existing Church custom of exomologesis
Note the enormous differences between this ancient practice and the later medieval sacrament of penance. Here, confession is public, there it is secret; here absolution is granted by the congregation, there it is granted by a priest as a special power of his office; nor does Tertullian recognize or show awareness of any distinction between mortal and venial sins, or temporal and eternal punishments. If we are to be charged with novelty for supposedly contradicting this practice, Rome is to be no less.
>It was not something he or others necessarily introduced in spite of this or that thing
I do not doubt the practice pre-existed Tertullian, but I think it would have originated with an orthodox justification, i.e. requiring those which had committed gross sins to publicly repent and prove their repentance through penance to be restored to the congregation, as we do now.
>Tertullian, one of the earliest Fathers who speaks about the Rule of Faith, conspiciously fails to mention that a doctrine like sola fide could be found in its deposit.
1. It is not as though he listed every Christian doctrine 2. I do not think you want to apply this standard consistently; where does Tertullian speak of the bodily assumption of Mary? 3. There were fathers both before and after him in which sola fide was unambiguously present
(cont.)

>>18434643
>2 Thess 2:15
The word “tradition” here literally means that which was passed down, transmitted. The “you” of the verse refers to the Thessalonians alone, and the “us” refers to Paul and his companions alone. He is referring in particular to the eschatological doctrine on which the epistle is written, which he had also spoken to them by mouth (verse 5). The purpose of the epistle is to reprimand them for abandoning this doctrine and using a false teaching to justify slovenly sin, this verse is an encouragement to stop doing that and heed this doctrine instead. Read the book from chapter 1 verse 1. Now, how this applies to us today is that we are to hold fast to the apostolic teaching. We indeed receive this from tradition, yet it is only on the authority of the word of God. The verse cannot be used to justify unbiblical novelties and innovations which were unknown and contrary to the apostles. This is why sola scriptura is so important, not against tradition but as its only guardian, to purge human and demonic errors from the sacred tradition and ensure that what the Church teaches is only that which is Catholic, that is what was believed everywhere, at all times, by everyone.

>>18434666
>>18434669
>These two in particular were more so authoritative in Africa than elsewhere.
These two in particular are the fathers of Latin theology. Something similar could be said of Augustine, whose theology is neglected by the east. This isn't really a relevant point.
>Note the enormous differences between this ancient practice and the later medieval sacrament of penance.
Notice even still the far far more enormous difference between both the practice and the theology of the 16th century Reformed Church and the ancient practice.
>there it is granted by a priest as a special power of his office
Both Tertullian and Cyprian do connect the office of the bishop and/or presbyter with the power to absolve sin.
>nor does Tertullian recognize or show awareness of any distinction between mortal and venial sins, or temporal and eternal punishments.
You continue to showcase your intellectual dishonestly since Tertullian, as most ancient authorities, does make a distinction between greater and lesser sins, for which lesser ones can be "absolved by the bishop" (On Modesty 18) but for greater ones require the Second Repentance, without which a person cannot be saved. Lesser sins, for Tertullian, we "daily faults", while greater ones like adultery, idolatry, murder, and theft were significantly more grave. True this is not exactly the form of the teaching as now articulated in Latin Catholic theology, but this isn't surprising given Tertullian's own rigorist tendencies. What came to be the Church's position was that of the moderates. The Roman Church in particular always had a tendency to adopt the moderate, even liberal, position in these rigorist controversies. What has come down to us now is rooted in this history.

>>18434666
>>18434669
>but I think it would have originated with an orthodox justification
You're assuming that the Calvinist position is orthodox. This is circular reasoning.
>requiring those which had committed gross sins to publicly repent and prove their repentance through penance to be restored to the congregation, as we do now.
This is only partially the justification for public penance in the early Church. But for all that we have on this, our earliest writers all agree that these penances were long, sometimes very strict (with corporeal punishments), and necessary for reconciliation with God, condemnation being a very real possibility for the penitent because of their grave sin. The theology articulated by our earliest writers involves the notions of satisfaction and appeasement, much more similar to Latin Catholic doctrine than Reformed.
>1. It is not as though he listed every Christian doctrine 2. I do not think you want to apply this standard consistently; where does Tertullian speak of the bodily assumption of Mary?
Since the assumption doctrine wasn't a dogmatic issue at the time I wouldn't expect to see it being listed among the essentials of the faith. Whereas, the issue we are discussing was an important topic, with which if sola fide had belong to the Rule of Faith, surely this would have been a solution to the issue. But neither the rigorists nor the mainstream Church adopted such a theology.

>>18434666
>>18434669
Part 1 of Post 3
>The verse cannot be used to justify unbiblical novelties and innovations which were unknown and contrary to the apostles.
Similar to your mistake above about assuming the Reformed position to be orthodox, you now assume the Calvinist position to be apostolical which it most certainly is not. Before pointing out the speck in someone's eye, remove the plank from your own. This hypocrisy from Protestants is exactly why St. John H. Newman wrote his magnum opus "On the Development of Doctrine." Now I find his reasoning plain, and just, and the most common sensical. When Mr. Newman wrote to be "deep in history is to cease being a Protestant", he was not saying the early Church was unequivocally Catholic in its doctrine (not that he doesn't believe the early Church was truly Catholic, but that's beside the point), rather he was showing that if anything, if anyone is going to be intellectually honest, no one would ever conclude the early Church was Protestant or become a Protestant by studying the first Christians,

>>18434666
>>18434669
Part 2 of Post 3
>Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. . . . And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
>And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it... but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it... To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

And this remains the problem for me with Protestantism, that it cannot be convincingly shown that the two most important slogans of the reformation, sola scriptura or sola fide, can beyond reasonable doubt be demonstrated to have been held as part of the Rule of Faith in the early Church, derived from scripture or the apostolic teaching.