How do we answer Sola Fide?

[sorrowfulagony]

I often hear this from Protestants who claim it is just by faith…
But then again, what about the Separation of the Goats and the Sheep? Both call Jesus Lord, so they have faith, but the sheep took care of others, while the goats did nothing.
Or Romans 2:6-8: “God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9”

Honestly, I think Protestants think the same thing, it’s just titles that we cling to. cultural.

 

[bmullins]

Simply send them to James 2:24

[bibledrb]James 2:24[/bibledrb]

Only verse in the bible that mentions faith only.

 

[Trebor135]

Show your interlocutors the following passages in I Corinthians:

From chapter six:

[9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
[10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
[11] And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

From chapter nine:

[24] Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.
[25] Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
[26] Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air;
[27] but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

From chapter thirteen:

[13] So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

 

[pgepps]

All of the responses you have been offered are good. As someone who spent a lot of years getting in theological discussions as a Protestant/dissenter before coming Home, let me offer a couple more ways to respond, any of which may or may not be appropriate to the exact conversation you’re in.

1. read, and suggest your friends read with you, Louis Bouyer’s very excellent The Spirit And Forms Of Protestantism.
2. Ask your Protestant friend to carefully define, preferably from Luther or Calvin, preferably from something instructional rather than polemical (Luther especially is prone to overstate his points in the heat of argument), and ideally confirmed in something your Protestant friend considers a confessional basis (for Presbyterians this would be the WCF); then look at the Biblical basis for those definitions.
3. If you do #2, or if you’re able to do something equivalent, you can then point out what many Protestants probably haven’t thought through about “sola fide” (which is, by the way, only meaningful in the constellation of insights “only by grace, only through faith, only from Scripture, only for God’s glory”). “sola fide” limits the means by which grace appears in our lives to those which include our faithful response (trusting, accepting, affirming, abiding, receiving), a faithful response which Catholic tradition itself clearly teaches is itself a work of God ( ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q6_A1.html ) and ( history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html ). Separated from God, we are unable to construct faith in God from our own blind folly; but God’s grace can provide us with the light and the eyes by which we see God, and seeing we may continue to see–all this without God either forcing us to look, or forcing us to look away.
4. Be sure you carefully understand this point, and walk through it with your Protestant friend: the idea of “cooperating with grace” does not mean “doing my bit, and God doing his bit.” It is truly absurd to imagine that my work ADDS to God’s work, making it enough. Rather, it means that God’s work actually does happen in me when I actually do God’s will. How do I know God is, as St. Paul says, “working in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure”? One obvious way is that I use the means of grace, as He has given them to me and drawn me to them–in the language of St. Augustine’s prayer, God has both commanded what He wills, and given what He has commanded.
5. Don’t be afraid to go right to Trent, here, because your Protestant friend really needs to understand that the right and Biblical sense of “sola fide” is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. Look at the link I sent above in more detail:

“in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.”

Notice that the language never suggests (it explicitly denies) that I, as separated from God, can make up my own faith or substitute natural (that is, grace of Creation) for gracious (that is, grace of Redemption) means; rather, it points out that grace does not operate in me so as to make me passive, but so as to make me active.

1. Your Protestant friend will likely find all of this agreeing perplexing. You’re saying, “Yes, that’s exactly what we teach: separated from God, you can do nothing to make yourself faithful or just or worthy of a gracious reception from God” and “Yes, that’s what we teach: God’s grace makes possible the faithful response to God’s grace which manifests God’s grace at work in the believer.” Some will accuse you of being “slippery” here; some will say the problem is elsewhere but be pleased by your agreement; most decent Protestant/evangelical theology buffs will make one of two moves, next. Either they will insist on the formal sanctification/justification divide, or they will insist that you’re missing the point: that Catholics violate “sola fide” by saying faith PLUS works rather than ONLY faith.

 

[pgepps]

1. formal sanctification/justification divide argument requires another whole dialectic, but for your reassurance I’ll just mention that it is strictly a post hoc rationale; this formal doctrine exists only to enforce the divide from Rome over the meaning of “only by grace, only by faith” on Protestants.
2. Now, as for the argument that Catholics say faith PLUS works rather than ONLY faith, if you’ve worked with some of the steps above and the suggestions of others, you’ll readily see that the majority of NT expressions will neatly fit the Catholic faith, while the Protestant interpretation relies on denying or explaining away one or more portions of nearly every key text on justification and faith. In fact, I would tend to recommend that you not cite James over against a Protestant citing Romans, as you are likely to strengthen the tendency, imparted to the movement by Luther, to create a functional canon still smaller than the 66 books that survived the Reformation. Instead, go directly to Romans and show how the discourse develops continuously from ch. 1-4, how 5-8 address several immensely important questions arising from the argument of 1-4, how 9-11 resume the principal argument, etc. Show how ch. 1-2 clearly teach that final judgment is (as it were) “on the merits” while 2-3 clearly teach that our efforts to comply with laws are not decisive in our salvation, with 3-4 clearly teaching that God’s gracious gift creates the occasion of our justification by faith; and do not stop there. (esvbible.org/Romans+4/)

“That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.”

Is justification by faith alone? If by this we mean “by no means apart from faith,” then yes. But if we mean “by faith apart from any activity,” we can’t even make sense of this in the text of Romans, on the most striking statement of this teaching! Note that Abraham’s faith is described as active: “believed against hope,” “did not weaken in faith,” “No unbelief made him waver,” “he grew strong in his faith.” Note that because Abraham’s faith bore this character “it was counted to him” in the way St. Paul most explicitly teaches applies to the faith of all believers. That is, on account of Abraham’s demonstrable, active faith in God’s promise, Abraham’s faith was justly called “righteousness,” that is, justice or right relation. This relationship will show up throughout Scripture.

1. Again, over and over, agree with your Protestant friend better than he knows. Only his tradition’s insistence that there is something Romish that is bad and works-salvationist, that whatever shape God’s work takes in his tradition is free from, or must be constantly freed from, any such “works-salvation” taint, makes “sola fide” sound different from the teaching of St. Augustine, the Council of Orange, the Council of Trent, or the Catechism. His tradition won’t actually be radically antinomian; they will have found some way to make the point that “faith works” ( amazon.com/Faith-Works-Gospel-According-Apostles/dp/0849908418 ); they will understand that it matters to use the means of grace ( ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/faith-and-means-grace/ ); even if they reject the term “means of grace,” they will believe that certain actions manifest God’s grace ( sites.google.com/site/firstbaptistchurchoh/what-we-believe/baptism ); they will likely believe there is some way to gain “assurance of salvation” ( ccci.org/training-and-growth/classics/transferable-concepts/you-can-be-sure-you-are-a-christian/07-assurance-of-salvation-possible.htm ), which necessarily (see St. John’s first epistle, as well as James, as well as Jesus in the Gospels) involves actual conversion, some change in act or thought ( desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/the-agonizing-problem-of-the-assurance-of-salvation or carm.org/christianity/devotions/assurance-salvation ). Your Protestant friend’s own “assurance of salvation” may be based on the memory of a “decision for Christ” manifested by having “walked an aisle” or “prayed the sinner’s prayer,” in fact. Friends of mine were gravely concerned when they spoke to a Christian who couldn’t recount a particular moment of “accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour,” despite a profession of having always believed the basics of the faith, and evidence in the form of a (Catholic) baptism &c. Don’t expect that your Protestant friends will readily agree that Catholic “works” are suitable evidence of Christian faith wrought by God’s grace; just help them realize that devout Protestants are constantly seeking evidence of Christian faith wrought by God’s grace, too.

 

[pgepps]

1. Finally, then, you’ll have to ask your Protestant friend what makes the “works” in his tradition different than the “works” in Catholicism–that is, why should the myriad ways God’s grace is manifested in the faithful response of the believer be “only faith” when they happen in a Protestant baptism, communion, charity bazaar, soup kitchen, bedside prayer, inward burning, etc.–but “faith plus works” when they happen in a Catholic baptism, communion, charity bazaar, soup kitchen, bedside prayer, private revelation, etc.? To the Catholic, the difference lies in the Apostolic nature of the Church, which makes Holy Communion truly what St. Paul called it, rather than a more-or-less faithful replica of that supper; which puts the myriad expressions of Christian charity in their right relations, building on one foundation toward the final unity of the faith as described in Ephesians. To the Protestant, the difference must in the end by wholly negative; more and more of the reality of God’s grace taking shape in his life must be pared away if he is to maintain that “only faith” means “faith apart from any active participation” rather than “only by entrusting oneself to God’s promises.” Eventually, he will have to live in a sort of radically existentialist framework where the reality of his salvation is utterly divorced from the actual lived belief, trust, fidelity, etc.–in which he must be assured that he believes, an assurance which is only possible by lived experience of faith, but must never be assured on any account except his belief, especially including any lived experience of faith. That, or he will arbitrarily select some sort of decision or experience or means of grace as “safe” from the charge of “works salvation,” and defend it against all comers.

Coda 1) Some Protestants will be prepared to argue that Protestant “works” are just evidence of faith, while Catholic “works” (the sacraments) are given ex opere operato efficacy. There are two misunderstandings, here, actually. (Note that Biblically and in careful Protestant theology, faith and the life of faith are evidence of God’s grace at work; faith produces evidence of God’s grace; faith is never pointed to, as a ground, itself.) More important, though, the Protestant (and possibly some Catholic he talked to?) has misunderstood the sense of ex opere operato. Sacraments are not effective “by the working of the work” in the way that my turning is effective when I turn on a tap to get water Rather, throughout the process–before, during, and after–God is working in us, in the priest, in the matter, in the whole Church, and through these the whole world. When the priest speaks in persona Christi capitis, then God works, and we see that He works because we see–and participate in–His work happening in the sacrament. Ex opere operato means that God actually does what He says, whether you benefit from it or don’t, not that your religious acts benefit you without regard for your relationship to God.

Coda 2) Many Protestants will divert the later stages of this conversation by drawing the line at “personal choice” as opposed to a “corporate choice.” This actually leaps to the very end of the dialectic, the problem of being reduced to a merely private judgment about what is not supposed to be about my action at all, on Protestant logic. You can help many through this by rejecting the personal/public dichotomy formed on the personal/private identification. Point out that many things which are “public” are also “personal,” as for example one’s identification with a sports team; that the “public” may be the more intensely or properly “personal” form of what is otherwise “merely personal” in a shadowy way, as fans who attend games have a more genuinely personal experience of the game than those who watch it on TV, or play fantasy sports. The cheerleaders, and the players on the team, have still closer levels of “personal” involvement based precisely on their more organic and actual “public” involvement. The question, then, is whether God is recruiting for His team, so to speak, or merely trying to attract remote viewers.

Hope it helps,
PGE

 

[JaKael02]

Dang… your like pro… how long you been studying to get that good?