Is "sola fide" actually works-based?

  • Thread starter Thread starter patricius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

patricius

Guest
Many born-again Christians claim that nothing human beings can do can possibly contribute to our salvation. They often rail against “works-based” salvific “systems.” But if you ask them to tell you how people are saved, they’ll generally respond that you have to “say the sinner’s prayer,” or “put your faith in the Lord Jesus,” or “accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.”

My question is: aren’t these things works? They certainly are all actions performed by human beings in time and space! How can these people claim that we can’t work for our salvation if they say that simply taking one of these actions is precisely how you are saved?
 
KARL KEATING’S E-LETTER

November 16, 2004

TOPIC:

CHRISTIANS HAVE NO GUARANTEE OF HEAVEN

Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:

After a parish seminar I spoke with a young man, a Fundamentalist, who insisted that one can have an absolute assurance of salvation.

“All you need to do is to accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,” he said. That acceptance will make you a “born-again Christian,” with heaven guaranteed. Nothing you later might do, no sin you might commit, would exclude you from heaven.

I proposed to him a hypothetical situation.

"Let’s say your pastor became a born-again Christian at age fifteen. He now is 75 and for sixty years has lived an exemplary Christian life. So far as anyone knows, and so far as he himself knows, he never, in those sixty years, has committed a serious sin.

"Today, while being in full possession of his faculties, he changes completely. He commits adultery, murders a stranger, robs a bank, deliberately runs over a cat with his car, shouts obscenities at passersby, and then commits suicide, cursing God as he dies unrepentant.

“My question to you,” I said to the young man, “is this: Does your minister go to heaven or hell?”

“To hell, of course.”

“How can that be, since he is a born-again Christian?”

“No, he isn’t.”

“Yes, he is, as I told you at the start.”

“No, he can’t be born-again.”

“Hey, this is my hypothetical! I told you he was a born-again Christian.”

“No born-again Christian would do those things.”

“So you mean that he fooled everyone, including himself, for sixty years? You mean he was mistaken?”

“Of course. There’s no other answer.”

Then I had a small revelation.

"What you’re saying is that you can’t tell whether a man really is a born-again Christian until he’s safely dead. It means you can’t tell if you yourself are a real Christian. You might be fooling yourself, as the minister fooled himself. The conclusion is that you can’t have the absolute assurance you’d like to have.

"In practice, if not in theory, you are perilously close to the Catholic understanding of salvation.

"The Catholic Church teaches that we can have a moral assurance of salvation but not an absolute assurance. We can be assured that we will go to heaven–if we remain in the state of grace. But we can have no assurance that we will persevere in such a state, much as we might want to at the moment.

"The Church teaches that since ‘God wills the salvation of all men,’ he gives each of us enough grace to be saved. Grace is a gift, and a gift is not forced upon the recipient. A gift can be accepted or rejected, and it can be rejected after once being accepted.

“The minister in my hypothetical once accepted grace and, on the last day of his life, rejected it, losing his salvation. He died grace-less and therefore disqualified for heaven.”

Our discussion went on for a while. I brought up several verses that I have found useful when talking about the idea of an absolute assurance of salvation. I particularly like to use a trio of verses from Paul. (I give them here in the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition translation.)

In Romans 5:2 Paul writes that “we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God”–that is, we rejoice in our hope of going to heaven. This means salvation is something we hope for.

More to follow-
 
In Romans 8:24 he says, “For in this hope we are saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?” Hope concerns things that are possible but not certain, which is why the saints in heaven no longer have the virtue of hope. They don’t need it. Having God, they already have everything, and there is nothing left for them to hope for.

In 1 Corinthians 9:27 Paul says, “I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” Even the apostle battled earthly temptations lest he succumb to them and lose heaven.

“Taken together,” I said to the young man, "these verses show that Paul did not teach an absolute assurance of salvation. Quite the opposite. Who was more a born-again Christian than he? Which Christians of your acquaintance have been knocked off their feet while on the road to Damascus?

“If Paul didn’t believe in an absolute assurance of salvation, why should we?”

Until next time,

Karl
 
That’s a great letter-- I like how it demonstrates that common sense (or should I say the “sense of faith?”) leads one to a Catholic understand of salvation.

But what I’m really asking about here is whether it’s consistent to say
  1. No action a human being takes can contribute to his (her) own salvation.
  2. To be saved, you must… [say the sinner’s prayer/accept Christ/etc.]
Isn’t this a contradiction?
 
My question is: aren’t these things works?
i think so. if we could be saved without works then there would be no point of trying to do God’s will. there would be no obedience of faith. which would make life on earth and His sacrafice pointless.
 
40.png
patricius:
That’s a great letter-- I like how it demonstrates that common sense (or should I say the “sense of faith?”) leads one to a Catholic understand of salvation.

But what I’m really asking about here is whether it’s consistent to say
  1. No action a human being takes can contribute to his (her) own salvation.
  2. To be saved, you must… [say the sinner’s prayer/accept Christ/etc.]
Isn’t this a contradiction?
Sounds like a contradiction to me!
 
So, why haven’t we heard more of this objection from Catholic apologists? I get the feeling that there’s something wrong with it, 'cause I’ve never heard it used before.
 
If salvation is not dependent on ANY human action, then we don’t have to do anything. We don’t need to say the sinner’s prayer, we don’t need to repent, we don’t need to love our neighbor. We don’t have to accept Jesus as our Saviour. Those are all human acts. Just sit back and relax, because Jesus has done it all. No worries.

PS–lest anyone misunderstand, that is NOT the Catholic position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top