It is likely the key disagreement and the more I’ve thought on this it is a rather strange problem. I’m not sure that faith is used equivocally so much as misused. I would contend there is no such thing as true faith. There is either faith or no faith.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. “True faith” is just a way of clarifying that there may be other things called faith which really (in the theological sense) aren’t.
Who would you say is misusing the term? The Protestant claim is that what Catholics call “dead faith” (faith not formed by love) is not really (in the theological sense) faith at all. (Hence, not “true faith.”) What such “faith” (whether the “faith of demons” or the faith of human beings who lack love) is missing is not something external to the nature of faith but an essential part of the only faith that matters from a theological perspective.
The idea of true faith is to indicate actual faith. The phrase should not have any theological significance.
That’s the Protestant claim in a nutshell–faith that doesn’t express itself in love has no theological significance. The traditional Catholic view is that such faith
does have significance–what it is lacking is love.
If someone were to come up to me and say the banks are going to crash today whether I had faith in that person would be determined by what I did.
I don’t think that’s a good enough analogy, because it doesn’t capture the faith/love issue. One can truly believe that God exists (as Satan does–though Aquinas would say that Satan’s belief in God doesn’t meet the basic definition of “faith”–more on that in a later post) while opposing Him.
Here’s a more elaborate version of the analogy. Suppose George Bailey (in
It’s a Wonderful Life) comes to you and says, “There’s going to be a run on the bank tomorrow, but here’s what I’d like you to do to help me save the bank from closing.” Having faith in George Bailey (in a sense analogous to saviing/living faith) would mean not only believing that there was going to be a run on the bank but helping him in his attempt to save people from losing their lifetime savings. But suppose you are Mr. Potter or one of Mr. Potter’s minions–you believe in the information you have been given but you use it for your own selfish purposes, to make as much as you can and leave everyone else holding the bag. Did you have “faith” in George Bailey?
So I would argue that the word
is in fact equivocal.
It seems to me many people want to reduce the issue of salvation to intellectual assent. Scripture is very clear that some who recognize God as being God will not be saved. So holding to the belief that God exists seems insufficient.
Everyone agrees on this. What we don’t agree on is the precise sense in which the word “faith” can be used for someone who has “intellectual assent” but not love.
The faith alone issue seems to me to be basing theology on what might best be called an edge case.
But if I’m right, that’s not really the case. The point of sola fide isn’t really the “edge case” but the motivating power of faith. Does faith
in itself have the power to make someone do good works (because it is naturally and necessarily joined to love) or does there have to be an additional “step” as it were.
The practical difference can be seen in how Catholics and Protestants preach the Gospel, particularly to those who are baptized and profess Christianity. Protestants say, “Believe in Jesus.” Catholics say, “Go to confession and practice works of charity.”
The Protestant method seems to work better, by and large. I don’t think either side is heretical–indeed, I agree that there are huge problems with many aspects of Protestant soteriology. But on this key point, it seems that the Protestant approach helps people come into a living relationship with Jesus, while the Catholic approach seems largely helpless in the face of “nominal” or “dead” religion.
Edwin
