Faith Alone?

[Per_Crucem]

This is actually a very pointless question. What is sufficient is if the concept is there in the text; the presence of the exact word is not the issue. The idea is there, specifically when he refers to not working but believing. The contrast between working and believing is unmistakable.

I found this somewhat helpful (at least, from the Eastern perspective)

blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2015/01/27/reconciling-paul-james-thoughts-justification/

 

[Koineman]

I found this somewhat helpful (at least, from the Eastern perspective)

blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2015/01/27/reconciling-paul-james-thoughts-justification/

Thanks, Per Crucem. I’ll check it out.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This is actually a very pointless question. What is sufficient is if the concept is there in the text; the presence of the exact word is not the issue. The idea is there, specifically when he refers to not working but believing. The contrast between working and believing is unmistakable.

If it is pointless to ask the question. Then it is pointless to add to Scriptures something it does not say. And still, you needed to add the “only” in order to support your argument, which by the nature of the pointless need to add the qualifier - is rendered pointless.

Truth is that there is no such thing as faith alone in Scriptures, with the exception of the negative qualification in James.

And that is the bottom line.

Further, you seem to forget Paul’s other argument from 1 Cor 13.

Where if we have faith as to move mountains but have no love, we are nothing.

In fact, Paul contrasts faith, hope and love. And love comes at the top. So not only is faith without works dead. But faith without love is nothing.

Definitely faith is not alone. Indeed, it is a pointless proposition.

 

[JonNC]

A couple of points. First, the Council of Orange also says, “According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.” The council does not deny that the performance of good works is necessary for salvation. Second is the idea of merit. I don’t know if you mean to deny this, but the New Testament frequently speaks of heaven as a reward based on the judgment of our works and, moreover, as something proportional to our works (i.e. that not all enjoy equal glory in heaven).

Let’s compare those words to Luther’s own, from his commentary on Galatians:

Verse 6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Lutherans would reject the notion that works are not necessary. They are. Paul tells us so in Galatians 5:6. we are justified by grace through faith. Specifically, a faith that works through love.

Jon

 

[onenow1]

Did not God require action from Abraham ?

God Bless
onenow1

 

[JonNC]

Did not God require action from Abraham ?

God Bless
onenow1

Sure. God requires action from all of us, particularly those of us who are regenerate That’s not the issue. The issue is how our communions view the role of those actions regarding salvation. Lutherans would say that works do not merit salvation, that the very Gospel message is salvation is merited by the passion, death and resurrection of Christ.

Jon

 

[Koineman]

If it is pointless to ask the question. Then it is pointless to add to Scriptures something it does not say.

That’s just it: It does say it. As I’ve reasonably shown, just because the precise word is not in the Scriptures does not mean the idea is not there. Sorry, but your argument doesn’t work. Opponents of the Trinity use the same logic, by the way.

And still, you needed to add the “only” in order to support your argument, which by the nature of the pointless need to add the qualifier - is rendered pointless.

It’s not pointless if the concept is in Scripture. It is.

Truth is that there is no such thing as faith alone in Scriptures, with the exception of the negative qualification in James.

That’s only if you’re arbitrarily requiring the presence of a single word, which is what you’re doing. By your lights, the word alone has to be there in order for the concept to be true. That is fallacious reasoning, as I’ve already shown.

This is yet another common tactic used by RC apologists that they really should abandon once and for all. It simply doesn’t work. Time to find new arguments.

Further, you seem to forget Paul’s other argument from 1 Cor 13.

Where if we have faith as to move mountains but have no love, we are nothing.

Scarecrow alert! You know, when someone attacks straw men, I start to wonder if they’re just talking past me and/or they don’t have a grasp on the issues involved.

Why do I say you’re setting up and attempting to knock down a scarecrow? Sola fide does not deny the necessity of works. Neither Luther nor the Book of Concord deniees the necessity of works. Please, please understand the opposing camp’s view before attacking it. Otherwise, you’re really just wasting your time because you’re attacking phantom beliefs that don’t exist.

Let me just say this not only for you but also for the other RC folks on here who don’t understand sola fide: All sides in this disagreement consider works to be necessary. Lutherans don’t say that works are optional.

What we do disagree on–specifically–is what works are necessary for.

 

[Koineman]

Lutherans would reject the notion that works are not necessary. They are. Paul tells us so in Galatians 5:6. we are justified by grace through faith. Specifically, a faith that works through love.

Jon

Another way of saying it is: We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That’s just it: It does say it. As I’ve reasonably shown, just because the precise word is not in the Scriptures does not mean the idea is not there. Sorry, but your argument doesn’t work. Opponents of the Trinity use the same logic, by the way.

Not by faith alone. That is the only logic and reason we find in Scriptures.

It’s not pointless if the concept is in Scripture. It is.

Like we see in James: not by faith alone. The concept is right there in Scripture.

That’s only if you’re arbitrarily requiring the presence of a single word, which is what you’re doing. By your lights, the word alone has to be there in order for the concept to be true. That is fallacious reasoning, as I’ve already shown.

No, you are being arbitrary. Scriptures actually say: not by faith alone. Your proposal is not found in Scripture.

This is yet another common tactic used by RC apologists that they really should abandon once and for all. It simply doesn’t work. Time to find new arguments.

There is no need for a tactic. Scriptures say:** not by faith alone**.

Scarecrow alert! You know, when someone attacks straw men, I start to wonder if they’re just talking past me and/or they don’t have a grasp on the issues involved.

If I would have said that you brought up something you did not. That would be a strawman. However, I did not ascribe the argument to you, but I pointed out something you seem to not be taking into consideration.

Why do I say you’re setting up and attempting to knock down a scarecrow? Sola fide does not deny the necessity of works. Neither Luther nor the Book of Concord deniees the necessity of works. Please, please understand the opposing camp’s view before attacking it. Otherwise, you’re really just wasting your time because you’re attacking phantom beliefs that don’t exist.

Oh oh, preaching alert. I understand it very well. Sola means alone. James, inspired by the Holy Spirit of God said: not by faith alone. The Faith Alone proposal is defeated before it even departs from the gate. It is a pious principle, but a non-working one nonetheless.

et me just say this not only for you but also for the other RC folks on here who don’t understand sola fide: All sides in this disagreement consider works to be necessary. Lutherans don’t say that works are optional.

This is the best example of a strawman. I did not say that Lutherans believe that works are optional.

But that faith is not alone, like the principle is called: faith alone. If it’s not alone, then why say it’s alone in the first place?

What we do disagree on–specifically–is what works are necessary for.

Good works are a necessary element of Faith, as much as love is. The moment you start separating and deeming what is necessary or not out of any of those 3 elements, that’s the moment you depart from the faith delivered once and for all.

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

[Koineman]

Not by faith alone. That is the only logic and reason we find in Scriptures.

Sorry, that’s not true. All you’re doing is what so many Christians of all stripes do: Pit one verse in the Bible against another, i.e., camp on the one verse or set of verses that support their theological system while ignoring the others that go against it.

That’s what you’re doing here. You’re camping on James 2 without considering how to resolve its tension with Paul in Romans and Galatians. The concept of justification by faith alone is most definitely in Scripture, particularly in this verse:

“But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:5)

Works are clearly contrasted with faith. Paul does not say, “To the one who works and believes, his faith is credited as righteousness.” He says “To the one who does NOT work, BUT believes …” This shows clearly that the concept of sola fide is in Scripture.

The challenge is to resolve this tension with James 2 by honestly considering at length and in detail what both passages are talking about. That, however, requires much more than just repeating the verse in the Bible that supports your theological system. Unfortunately, that seems what you are bent on doing. As long as you are going to camp on James 2 without trying to resolve its tension with Paul, there is no reason to continue discussing this with you, as all you’ll keep doing is saying, “See! James says ‘not by faith alone’!” over and over again.

God bless you, and thanks for discussing it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sorry, that’s not true. All you’re doing is what so many Christians of all stripes do: Pit one verse in the Bible against another, i.e., camp on the one verse or set of verses that support their theological system while ignoring the others that go against it.

How can I be pitting verses, when I am harmonizing good works, faith and love as all part of the grace of God and all together?

I’m sorry Koineman, but you are not making much sense.

 

[Koineman]

How can I be pitting verses, when I am harmonizing good works, faith and love as all part of the grace of God and all together?

I’m sorry Koineman, but you are not making much sense.

You mentioned other verses to show the necessity of love and works, but that has nothing to do with sola fide because sola fide does not deny that necessity. This is what you wrote:

Actually Paul is in complete harmony with James.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

They both preached a faith with good works. Not without good works. James writing is the inevitable conclusion of a faith without good works: dead.

The boldfaced portion is why I said you attacked a straw man. Sola fide does not say that faith can exist without good works. But you feel the need to emphasize “not without good works” as though sola fide did, in fact, teach that. You’re attacking a phantom belief.

Like I said, you need to get a grasp on what the opposing side actually believes before you criticize it. Otherwise, you’re boxing with phantoms.

Thus, all you’ve really done so far regarding the issue of sola fide is camp on James 2.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Works are clearly contrasted with faith. Paul does not say, “To the one who works and believes, his faith is credited as righteousness.” He says “To the one who does NOT work, BUT believes …” This shows clearly that the concept of sola fide is in Scripture.

Just to briefly chime in; the problem in our POV is that both of the opposing sides in these modern debates, as was done at the time of the Reformation, is to read medieval and current notions of legalism, merit, etc. anachronistically back into both St. Paul and St. James.

St. Paul’s epistles were not doctrinal treatises out of the blue but were all written to address problems in the Church. These letters are not exclusively (or even primarily) for the sake of posterity and for the establishment of “dogma,” but are rather mostly for the purpose of correcting errors in both thought and behavior in the faith of the Christians to whom he is writing.

Paul is not trying to correct the errors of Pelagians, the Council of Trent, the Book of Concord or the Westminster Confession of Faith; but first century Judaizers.

 

[rcwitness]

Just to briefly chime in; the problem in our POV is that both of the opposing sides in these modern debates, as was done at the time of the Reformation, is to read medieval and current notions of legalism, merit, etc. anachronistically back into both St. Paul and St. James.

St. Paul’s epistles were not doctrinal treatises out of the blue but were all written to address problems in the Church. These letters are not exclusively (or even primarily) for the sake of posterity and for the establishment of “dogma,” but are rather mostly for the purpose of correcting errors in both thought and behavior in the faith of the Christians to whom he is writing.

Paul is not trying to correct the errors of Pelagians, the Council of Trent, the Book of Concord or the Westminster Confession of Faith; but first century Judaizers.

Good point.

I really do understand the goodness within the ‘Faith Alone’. But I can also see why there is a contempt for the Catholic faith, which Teaches that works are needed to complete the faith which is from God, which produces division.

We are NOT justified because any work we do, because that would assume that goodness comes from man and man is able to uphold the Law of works. No, in order for man to do any work from above, God first needs to consider him worthy to share His Spirit. It is the Spirit who compells us to work! In order to hear the Spirit, we must use faith. So faith is hearing and knowing what is of God and what pleases Him. Jesus is what has pleased God. To know this, faith is the root and foundation. But this means that the work of God has already begun in transforming our heart! This will be then manifested in confessing what we believe… that Christ is the Son of God and the Lamb of God!

By faith we will do works that please God. By faith alone, we cannot please God. But this is not being doers of the faith, but mere clanging symbols without the love which faith would bring us, but we choose to not walk by the faith we have seen.

Christ is able to wash us of all sin and its consequence, but that is the beginning of receiving His life! Receiving His life brings good works which are His salvation in each of us.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You mentioned other verses to show the necessity of love and works, but that has nothing to do with sola fide because sola fide does not deny that necessity. This is what you wrote:

The boldfaced portion is why I said you attacked a straw man. Sola fide does not say that faith can exist without good works. But you feel the need to emphasize “not without good works” as though sola fide did, in fact, teach that. You’re attacking a phantom belief.

Like I said, you need to get a grasp on what the opposing side actually believes before you criticize it. Otherwise, you’re boxing with phantoms.

Thus, all you’ve really done so far regarding the issue of sola fide is camp on James 2.

That was directed at what both James and Paul wrote, not at Lutheranism. As such, it is not a strawman.

A straw man is an argument that interprets someone’s position an opinion that he did not express. Not once have I misrepresented the Lutheran opinion. Therefore, no straw man.

I can see this is going nowhere. Just so you know, I am probably the most Lutheran Catholic on these forums. Make no mistake in thinking I do not understand Lutheranism’s position on Sola Fide. It is precisely this principle the main reason I am not Lutheran. I cannot, will not accept a principle that goes face first against Scriptures (Right there with Sola Scriptura, but that is another thread). It is a pious principle, but contradictory nonetheless. The amount of mental gymnastics necessary to accept it, is almost as insurmountable as the principle of supreme, universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.

It is the biggest contradiction in Christian history. If you want to isolate anything, that would be grace, for without it we don’t get anything else. That is what is truly necessary, along with mercy. But it can be argued that mercy flows from Grace as well.

 

[spiderweb]

First, I really apologize for not being able to keep up with my own thread.

Apart from the OSAS camp, no one here is arguing that good works are not necessary in some way. The real problem and division from Luther and the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church teaches that the normal means of obtaining Grace necessary for heaven is obtained through baptism. Martin Luther denied this, and said that it came by faith alone. He viewed baptism as a “work of law” which St. Paul says in Romans, cannot save you. Therefore if grace is a free gift from God, and it is not received through baptism, he immediately turns to “a man is justified by faith [alone]”, and not by any works of law [baptism]. Thus “faith alone”. There are many good works that are beneficial, but in and of themselves will not give the grace necessary for heaven even though they are completely in accord with living the Christian life.

Having said all of that, I’m not really interested in debating this on here, but I am trying to understand the non-Catholic view of faith alone.

Questions:

1. Can a person be saved without their sins being forgiven?
2. When a person first receives “faith” are their sins automatically forgiven at that point is there something that they must “do” in order to have their sins forgiven?
3. For a newly converted Christian in the Bible, when are those sins forgiven?

I’ll answer my own questions from the Catholic view, to just lay out that position.

1. No, sin is a barrier to the grace of God.
2. First they must repent, then be baptized, then receive forgiveness of sins, followed by the receiving of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38 " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.") Also (Acts 22:16 "be baptized, and wash away your sins…)
3. At baptism sins are forgiven as above also 1 Peter 3:21 “baptism now saves you”. How can baptism save anyone unless through baptism grace is received.

 

[Koineman]

Good point.

I really do understand the goodness within the ‘Faith Alone’. But I can also see why there is a contempt for the Catholic faith, which Teaches that works are needed to complete the faith which is from God, which produces division.

We are NOT justified because any work we do, because that would assume that goodness comes from man and man is able to uphold the Law of works. No, in order for man to do any work from above, God first needs to consider him worthy to share His Spirit. It is the Spirit who compells us to work! In order to hear the Spirit, we must use faith. So faith is hearing and knowing what is of God and what pleases Him. Jesus is what has pleased God. To know this, faith is the root and foundation. But this means that the work of God has already begun in transforming our heart! This will be then manifested in confessing what we believe… that Christ is the Son of God and the Lamb of God!

By faith we will do works that please God. By faith alone, we cannot please God. But this is not being doers of the faith, but mere clanging symbols without the love which faith would bring us, but we choose to not walk by the faith we have seen.

I don’t know if you were addressing the Protestant teaching on sola fide when you wrote this, but if you were, then in all honesty, you’re just another person who is criticizing something he/she does not understand and attacking a straw man. Sola fide does not teach the things implied in the boldfaced text above. It does not teach that good works are not necessary or that good works do not always accompany true faith.

Then again, if you were not addressing sola fide, that’s a different matter.

 

[Koineman]

First, I really apologize for not being able to keep up with my own thread.

Apart from the OSAS camp, no one here is arguing that good works are not necessary in some way.

Agreed.

The real problem and division from Luther and the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church teaches that the normal means of obtaining Grace necessary for heaven is obtained through baptism. Martin Luther denied this, and said that it came by faith alone.

100% INcorrect. He maintained faith alone, but he also affirmed baptismal regeneration and washing through baptism. Faith alone does not militate against grace through baptism.

He viewed baptism as a “work of law” which St. Paul says in Romans, cannot save you.

Do you have any reference for this? any quote from Luther? Because from what I’ve read, he never viewed baptism as a work of law but rather affirmed its saving power, as does the Book of Concord.

Therefore if grace is a free gift from God, and it is not received through baptism, he immediately turns to “a man is justified by faith [alone]”, and not by any works of law [baptism]. Thus “faith alone”.

Wow, where did you hear this from? Neither Luther nor Lutherans claim what you say about baptism. We don’t call baptism a “work of law,” nor do we pit baptism against the teaching of faith alone.

This is why I mentioned earlier in this thread that folks need to first become familiar with what the opposing camp believes. You are attacking straw men here.

Questions:

1. Can a person be saved without their sins being forgiven?
2. When a person first receives “faith” are their sins automatically forgiven at that point is there something that they must “do” in order to have their sins forgiven?
3. For a newly converted Christian in the Bible, when are those sins forgiven?

1. No.
2. I can only answer from the Lutheran perspective, which is all about faith when it comes to justification. We are justified by faith alone, so the only thing we can “do” to have sins forgiven is to have faith. Likewise, the only thing we can “do” to lose forgiveness is to not believe. That does not rule out repentance and baptism, by the way.
3. That’s a tricky question. We sin every day, so we get sins forgiven through confession, absolution, and partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

 

[spiderweb]

And that’s why I started this thread in the first place. To clear up misunderstandings and to be corrected when in error. If I am going to disagree with something, I want to know what I am actually disagreeing with and not a misunderstanding.

 

[Koineman]

And that’s why I started this thread in the first place. To clear up misunderstandings and to be corrected when in error. If I am going to disagree with something, I want to know what I am actually disagreeing with and not a misunderstanding.

Fair enough. What non-Catholic material on sola fide have you read?