Salvation though faith alone-or through faith AND deeds?

[Nita]

I had a disagreement with a fellow Christian who said salvation can be achieved through faith alone, and deeds have nothing to with it…

What puzzles me about such people is what their definition of “God” can possibly be - their understanding who God is.
I can’t imagine believing in an **omnipotent **God who created the universe, a God who only speaks truth, a God who is all good, a God who…, and then think I don’t have to do (deeds) what He says, that it’s okay to ignore most of the commands He’s given me!!!
It’s beyond my imagination to understand how a person can think that deliberately disobeying GOD won’t have any negative consequences for him/her even if He said they would.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Don’t get involved. It is a spiritually dangerous fight.

Consider a pickpocket. A pickpocket works by distracting you with a bump or some other activity while he quietly filches your stuff. Bump. There goes your wallet. Bump, there goes your cell phone.

The devil is a master pickpocket of souls. He has many diversionary techniques, but one of his favorites seems to be setting well meaning Christians fighting over unsolvable (chicken vs egg type questions) so that he can sneak in a related heresy.

One example of this is the early church who (at least in the east) spent way too much time trying to answer an unknowable and to a large extent unimportant question: what is the exact relationship between the Father and the Son? They came to blows over which subtle word that they should use to describe that the Father and Son were made of the same stuff. In my humble opinion this fight was what allowed Arianism (the belief that Jesus was not God) to become so strong so quickly. (The whole situation is obviously much more complicated than what I am representing here.)

The question of faith vs works is another example of Satan bumping us so that he can steal our most precious truths. Asking which comes first (or is more important) faith or works is a little like asking which came first the chicken or the (chicken) egg. (Obviously dinosaur eggs existed way before chickens )

Faith vs works (or solo fidei) are merely distraction from the true source of our salvation: WE ARE SAVED BY THE GRACE OF OUR LORD CHRIST. (I don’t mean to shout, I just mean to catch the eye so that if a reader saw nothing else he would see this.) Everything else that you or I can say or do is but dust in the wind compared to that one fact.

What I recommend that you do if someone wants to argue either side is to simply say: ‘We are saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, period. It is not faith vs works or even faith and works it is a gift freely given.’ If you want to follow up merely say: ‘Will you accept that awesome and terrifying gift? God has forgiven yours and my great debt. How are we to respond to that? Shall we be the forgiven debtor who does not forgive the much smaller debts of our fellow servants? Should we not stop arguing about such subtle and unimportant difference as faith vs. works and begin to try to follow Jesus and ALL of his commands?’

 

[JRKH]

Tony,
Great post and some good points. Such arguments can (if we let them) distract us from more important matters.
I like the analogy of the pickpocket and the use of distraction for the purpose of stealing something more valuable.

That said…I kind of disagree with the idea that we should not argue (discuss) these things out. While I think that the majority of Christians, both RC/EO and protestant, understand that there truly is a delicate and necessary interplay between faith and works, there are (or can be) extremes on both sides that represent genuine and dangerous error.
We do no one a good service by allowing such error to proceed unchecked.

To use your analogy of the pickpocket…If I see a pickpocket at work, I need to point him out to others. To me, that is what these kinds of discussions are about.

My concern in these matters is that the position of “Faith alone” as often presented by certain protestant groups can be - in itself - like that pickpocket. It gives a false belief that so long as one believes in Jesus and is baptized, nothing else matters…no deeds are required…Many - even most - Christians of all stripes will agree that this is wrong and that deeds are part and parcel of a saving faith.
Yet for some reason we struggle to express this in a common way.

So we argue and discuss in order to come to better understanding.

Peace
James

 

[Evan]

Maybe the difference is between

“Sola Fides informata”, A faith where we believe Jesus (informed about him)

and

“Sola Fides formata”, A faith where our heart has been formed and we have put on Christ, ie we believe in Jesus.

See the encyclical by Pope Francis, Lumen Fidei

1. This fullness which Jesus brings to faith has another decisive aspect. In faith, Christ is not simply the one in whom we believe, the supreme manifestation of God’s love; he is also the one with whom we are united precisely in order to believe. Faith does not merely gaze at Jesus, but sees things as Jesus himself sees them, with his own eyes: it is a participation in his way of seeing. In many areas in our lives we trust others who know more than we do. We trust the architect who builds our home, the pharmacist who gives us medicine for healing, the lawyer who defends us in court. We also need someone trustworthy and knowledgeable where God is concerned. Jesus, the Son of God, is the one who makes God known to us (cf. Jn 1:18). Christ’s life, his way of knowing the Father and living in complete and constant relationship with him, opens up new and inviting vistas for human experience. Saint John brings out the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus for our faith by using various forms of the verb “to believe”. In addition to “believing that” what Jesus tells us is true, John also speaks of “believing” Jesus and “believing in” Jesus. We “believe” Jesus when we accept his word, his testimony, because he is truthful. We “believe in” Jesus when we personally welcome him into our lives and journey towards him, clinging to him in love and following in his footsteps along the way.

 

[football5680]

We are saved by faith alone but you must define what true faith is. Deeds alone mean nothing because an atheist denies God and cannot be saved if they do that. Faith without deeds means nothing because you are simply paying god lip service and saying you believe.

If you have true faith you would believe the bible and follow the teachings of Jesus. If you follow these teachings then good works naturally come. Good works show that you do have faith in God because you have believed his words and applied them to your life.

 

[JRKH]

I did a little digging this morning…I’m no linguist or even student of the ancient languages…but I found the following in Strong’s Concordance…

The Greek term Translated most often as “Faith” in the writings of both Paul and James is
“Pistis”. A quick look at the link provided will give the definition of the term…
Nowhere in this definition is there a requirement for action. The nearest might be where it mentions, “…holy fervour…” yet this could mean many things - not all of which will assure salvation (I’m thinking of those who cry “lord lord”).
So - based on this, I have to wonder how the modern “Faith alone” adherent can hold that works are a natural product of faith since such is not included in the definition.

The term works used by Paul and James in the NT is
Ergon
Like Pistis above, that does not require action…Ergon does not require a firm belief in a given thing. I dare say that many people today are employed in jobs in which they have no great or firm belief.

So why do I bring these things up?

It is with this idea. That in trying to understand why the Catholic Church says “faith and works” it is good to understand what ancients understood the terms to mean. Thus - faith and works is actually quite clear and demonstrates the necessary interplay between firm belief and conviction - and acting on that conviction.

Saying “faith alone” - and trying to role works into the definition of faith…just does not fit with the meanings…

Just some thoughts.

Peace
James

 

[bzkoss236]

I did a little digging this morning…I’m no linguist or even student of the ancient languages…but I found the following in Strong’s Concordance…

The Greek term Translated most often as “Faith” in the writings of both Paul and James is
“Pistis”. A quick look at the link provided will give the definition of the term…
Nowhere in this definition is there a requirement for action. The nearest might be where it mentions, “…holy fervour…” yet this could mean many things - not all of which will assure salvation (I’m thinking of those who cry “lord lord”).
So - based on this, I have to wonder how the modern “Faith alone” adherent can hold that works are a natural product of faith since such is not included in the definition.

The term works used by Paul and James in the NT is
Ergon
Like Pistis above, that does not require action…Ergon does not require a firm belief in a given thing. I dare say that many people today are employed in jobs in which they have no great or firm belief.

So why do I bring these things up?

It is with this idea. That in trying to understand why the Catholic Church says “faith and works” it is good to understand what ancients understood the terms to mean. Thus - faith and works is actually quite clear and demonstrates the necessary interplay between firm belief and conviction - and acting on that conviction.

Saying “faith alone” - and trying to role works into the definition of faith…just does not fit with the meanings…

Just some thoughts.

Peace
James

Justification by Pistis and Ergon
Sounds like they could be names

 

[Semangelof]

Nicely put Jon,…I think that from my perspective - when I read and discuss these things - I would like to see the term “Alone” dropped.

That phrase has always bothered me as well. I know what it actually means, but the phrase is simple enough to be easily deceiving without research. When I hear protestants and Catholics debate over this issue it almost sounds like two debaters speaking in different languages over an issue they unknowingly agree upon but are divided by translation.

---

The protestant is afraid of a salvation bought through works, and the catholic is afraid of a salvation won in the midst of willing debauchery. It’s been a mystery and a struggle trying to satisfy the Bible on this. Now there is always a protestant that is an exception but it always seems to me that the phrase should be termed “Living Faith Alone”.

“Living faith alone” is a phrase…I think…that could be understood/agreed by us both. A “dead faith” fails the book of James and leads to hell, but a “living faith alone” is a salvation through faith alone in which “works” are a necessary out come. A living faith WILL produce works, it’s unavoidable. In fact a lack of works is shown in James to be a clear sign of a dead faith which leads to hell. There will be few, pray none, of the protestants that would believe a dead faith leads to salvation.

“Living faith alone” is a place to start at least. We may still disagree over the focus points but at least in that term we do not disqualify each other without need.

 

[JRKH]

That phrase has always bothered me as well. I know what it actually means, but the phrase is simple enough to be easily deceiving without research. When I hear protestants and Catholics debate over this issue it almost sounds like two debaters speaking in different languages over an issue they unknowingly agree upon but are divided by translation.

Excellently put…This has been my experience as well.

The protestant is afraid of a salvation bought through works, and the catholic is afraid of a salvation won in the midst of willing debauchery.

Agreed - and yet the vast majority of the people on both sides of the issue believe in either of these positions.
No Catholic teaching or even private revelation that I have ever heard of has ever promoted a “works alone” view…So why does the “Sola” camp feel the need to promote “Faith alone”…?

It’s been a mystery and a struggle trying to satisfy the Bible on this. Now there is always a protestant that is an exception but it always seems to me that the phrase should be termed “Living Faith Alone”.

“Living faith alone” is a phrase…I think…that could be understood/agreed by us both. A “dead faith” fails the book of James and leads to hell, but a “living faith alone” is a salvation through faith alone in which “works” are a necessary out come. A living faith WILL produce works, it’s unavoidable. In fact a lack of works is shown in James to be a clear sign of a dead faith which leads to hell. There will be few, pray none, of the protestants that would believe a dead faith leads to salvation.

“Living faith alone” is a place to start at least. We may still disagree over the focus points but at least in that term we do not disqualify each other without need.

I like your approach here - but I think that it fails to be any more clear than simply “faith alone”…As you say, if “faith alone” is easily misunderstood without further research, so can “living faith alone”.
I understand what you mean here - that one is saved by a “Living faith” alone…but one could just as easily read the phrase as “living” faith alone…Do you see what I mean? It would be easier if I could speak it to demonstrate the different inflection…

I don’t mean to be down on your attempt…but just sharing my thoughts on it…

Peace
James

 

[bzkoss236]

I think the other part of the issue that seems to be peeking its head in here is the idea that it is faith that saves, when it is in fact God’s grace that saves. The only alone that all Christians should agree with

We are saved by Grace alone

Faith does not save us, it justifies us to receive Grace, but only when proved by the fruit of Works.

So, I feel it is utmost incorrect to say that Faith saves, or even Faith and Works. They are only a means to justify us to receive the saving Grace given freely by God.

I know that many probably mean that we are Justified by a living Faith (or Faith and Works) when saying that, but that I feel is more a means of confusion as to what is actually going on than the confusion on faith alone vs faith and works.

Just my opinion.

 

[JRKH]

I think the other part of the issue that seems to be peeking its head in here is the idea that it is faith that saves, when it is in fact God’s grace that saves. The only alone that all Christians should agree with

We are saved by Grace alone

Faith does not save us, it justifies us to receive Grace, but only when proved by the fruit of Works.

So, I feel it is utmost incorrect to say that Faith saves, or even Faith and Works. They are only a means to justify us to receive the saving Grace given freely by God.

I know that many probably mean that we are Justified by a living Faith (or Faith and Works) when saying that, but that I feel is more a means of confusion as to what is actually going on than the confusion on faith alone vs faith and works.

Just my opinion.

Very nicely said…

Actually I would go even a bit further and say that we are saved by “Agape” Love alone. for everything from grace to faith to works is based upon God’s Love for us and our response to that Love.

Peace
James