'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[Johan]

Well, sola fide does of course not stand in opposition to love. Sola fide is a concise expression telling us on what basis we are justified (i.e., acquitted from our sin) before God. We are not justified because we love - we love because He has justified us by His blood.

However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. (Rom. 4:5)

 

[fhansen]

Well, sola fide does of course not stand in opposition to love. Sola fide is a concise expression telling us on what basis we are justified (i.e., acquitted from our sin) before God. We are not justified because we love - we love because He has justified us by His blood.

Except that our justice or righteousness that’s realized at justification consists, in part, in the virtue of love. We don’t love solely because we’ve been acquitted of sin IOW, rather we love because we’ve actually been made just at justification, love being the most important virtue of the justice or righteousness given.

 

[Johan]

Except that our justice or righteousness that’s realized at justification consists, in part, in the virtue of love. We don’t love solely because we’ve been acquitted of sin IOW, rather we love because we’ve actually been made just at justification, love being the most important virtue of the justice or righteousness given.

However, “to justify” does not mean “to make righteous”, just like “to acquit a criminal defendant from his/her charges” does not mean “to make a criminal person a law abiding individual”. I take the liberty to quote the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) concerning the meaning of δικαιόω (“to justify”):

In Paul the legal usage is plain and indisputable. The opposite of δικαιοῦν [“to justify”, my remark] is κατακρίνειν [“to condemn”, my remark] (R. 8:34). For Paul the word δικαιοῦν does not suggest the infusion of moral qualities, a justum efficere in the sense of the creation of right conduct. It implies the justification of the ungodly who believe, on the basis of the justifying action of God in the death and resurrection of Christ. To be sure, the δικαιοῦσθαι is an act of grace rather than of retribution according to works. Yet this act of grace in the cross can be called forensic because in the ἱλαστήριον [“mercy seat” or “means of expiation”, my remark] judgment is executed on all sin in the Substitute. [1]

References

[1] Schrenk, G. (1964–). δίκη, δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη, δικαιόω, δικαίωμα, δικαίωσις, δικαιοκρισία. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament (electronic ed., Vol. 2, p. 215). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

 

[Michael16]

You’re still squirming. According to the article, the original use of the term Sola Fide meant what the Church condemned in the Council of Trent. According to the article, Protestant doctrine changed over time into a form that accidentally lines up with Catholic doctrine. Because Protestants ran into the exact problem that Sola Fide logically produces. A happy accident that you’re employing.

Plus, what bothers me is that the article’s author seems to be saying he’s both Evangelical and Catholic at the same time. A paradox that makes me suspicious of his opinion.

 

[JonNC]

You’re still squirming. According to the article, the original use of the term Sola Fide meant what the Church condemned in the Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent has no standing in the definition of sola fide. As for squirming, I have nothing to squirm about. I can present additional links if you need them.

According to the article, Protestant doctrine changed over time into a form that accidentally lines up with Catholic doctrine

First, there is no such thing as Protestant doctrine. Even Akin makes that distinction (“good Protestant). There is Lutheran doctrine, and other communions have theirs.
As for Lutheranism, the confessions haven’t changed.
To the extent that Lutheran and Catholic doctrines align, that should be celebrated, not a cause for accusation. No?

Because Protestants ran into the exact problem that Sola Fide logically produces. A happy accident that you’re employing.

I’m not sure what problem you mean. And if Lutheran doctrine aligns with Catholic doctrine, does that mean you think Catholic doctrine has a problem, too?

Plus, what bothers me is that the article’s author seems to be saying he’s both Evangelical and Catholic at the same time. A paradox that makes me suspicious of his opinion.

You’re questioning Akin’s Catholic bona fides?

 

[Michael16]

If a Catholic attemptes to say he’s both Catholic and Evangelical simultaneously, then yes. It’s an impossibility to be Catholic and Protestant and the same time.

As for your assertion that Sola Fide has nothing to do with the Council of Trent: No, you’re quite wrong there. The council definitively addressed Sola Fide. You glossed that over in your analysis of the article.

As for Akin supposedly not addressing Protestant doctrine; he used both terms. He addressed Protestant doctrine in the whole and Lutheran doctrine in specific.

I will agree to your point that when Lutheran and Catholic doctrines line up together, it should be celebrated. Problem is; there’s still many errors your tradition adheres to. The other problem is you use Catholic doctrine to defend Lutheran doctrine when it suits you. Like when Luther selectively employs Saints Paul and Augustine to build up his case.

 

[JonNC]

I will agree to your point that when Lutheran and Catholic doctrines line up together, it should be celebrated. Problem is; there’s still many errors your tradition adheres to.

I will agree to your point that when Lutheran and Catholic doctrines line up together, it should be celebrated. Problem is; there’s still many errors your tradition adheres to.

I guess we’re even.

 

[fhansen]

As I said before, it depends on which definition one chooses to use, and which theological slant is being supported by it . And, yes, Jesus took the punishment for our sins, so that forgiveness was won for all. But not to provide a license to continue to sin without consequence. There’s a reason why a believer should be expected to love, and even commanded to do so. And that’s because he’s able to do so now, enabled to. And yet this is an enablement he can refuse to take advantage of, or even walk away from at any time. He can bury his “talents”.

 

[JonNC]

As for your assertion that Sola Fide has nothing to do with the Council of Trent: No, you’re quite wrong there. The council definitively addressed Sola Fide. You glossed that over in your analysis of the article.

Let me rephrase: it doesn’t matter to us what the Council of Trent says. Trent doesn’t define what sola fide means.

 

[godisgood77]

Justification comes through Mary’s love alone as she is the perfect expression of God’s love for mankind.

Huh? What religion is that from?

 

[Wannano]

Michael16:

I will agree to your point that when Lutheran and Catholic doctrines line up together, it should be celebrated. Problem is; there’s still many errors your tradition adheres to.

I will agree to your point that when Lutheran and Catholic doctrines line up together, it should be celebrated. Problem is; there’s still many errors your tradition adheres to.

I guess we’re even.

One thing I admire about you Jon is how you display the love a Christian is supposed to have even in acidic conversation.

 

[Michael16]

Then why mention the council at all? Btw: Yes, Trent did define it. You’re skirting the issue again.

 

[po18guy]

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Always seems to get “lost in the translation” does it not?

 

[JonNC]

Then why mention the council at all? Btw: Yes, Trent did define it. You’re skirting the issue again.

I didn’t. You did.

 

[Johan]

As I said before, it depends on which definition one chooses to use, and which theological slant is being supported by it . And, yes, Jesus took the punishment for our sins, so that forgiveness was won for all. But not to provide a license to continue to sin without consequence.

Sola fide is not a “license to continue to sin” any more than the sacrament of penance and reconciliation is. The renewed Christian individual does not have a natural desire to sin but continues to sin anyway. My experience from discussing this issue over the years is that no one who claims that we can and should stop sinning admit to having done so. I wonder why that is the case if there really is no obstacle for ceasing to sin in this very instant.

 

[fhansen]

Sola fide is not a “license to continue to sin” any more than the sacrament of penance and reconciliation is. The renewed Christian individual does not have a natural desire to sin but continues to sin anyway. My experience from discussing this issue over the years is that no one who claims that we can and should stop sinning admit to having done so. I wonder why that is the case if there really is no obstacle for ceasing to sin in this very instant.

The problem is the disconnect that the doctrine places between the obligation to be righteous, and actually being righteous. If there’s no consequence for sin, then where does one draw the line as to at what point one must not have had real faith to begin with, or at what point we’ve simply sinned too much in any case?

Catholicism recognizes the problem- and rather than finding lack of faith to be the culprit, identifies the problem as the failure of our own wills to act as we should on that faith, falling back into sin and a life in the flesh that is grave or serious enough to effectively distance us from God by its nature, destroying love in us to put it another way. God would have us perfect but isn’t necessarily expecting it now in the absolute sense, but rather expecting that our “talents” be invested, and growth be made, in justice/righteousness/holiness/love, in choosing good over evil, in the overall picture. Then at the end of the day He judges, by the heart, how well we’ve done with what we were given.

 

[Michael16]

I concede that you didn’t mention the council. The article did. My bad; I got confused.

But, you haven’t addressed what the article discusses as development of what Sola Fide means in Protestant doctrine; as the article states that the definition was originally something else and has undergone redefinition over time. If that’s true, what did Luther originally mean by Sola Fide?

An honest apologist can not select and retroactively fit things together to preserve his argument.

 

[JonNC]

I concede that you didn’t mention the council. The article did. My bad; I got confused.

But, you haven’t addressed what the article discusses as development of what Sola Fide means in Protestant doctrine; as the article states that the definition was originally something else and has undergone redefinition over time. If that’s true, what did Luther originally mean by Sola Fide?

An honest apologist can not select and retroactively fit things together to preserve his argument.

Wha Luther meant, what the Evangelical-Catholic reformers meant, what the confessions say, and what confessional Lutherans mean today hasn’t changed.
What other traditions mean is up to them. As I said, my knowledge is not inclusive of other traditions enough to speak for them.
I still can’t find where he says that Lutheran understanding of sola fide has changed. Perhaps you can identify it.

 

[Michael16]

The “ reformers “ weren’t Catholic. Catholic means universal: Believed by everyone.

I’ll just ask again: What did Luther mean by Sola Fide?

 

[JonNC]

The “ reformers “ weren’t Catholic. Catholic means universal: Believed by everyone.

Evangelical Catholic is the term the Lutheran reformers used and some modern Lutherans continue to use.

I’ll just ask again: What did Luther mean by Sola Fide?

Oh, goodness. Go read all of the things I’ve posted.