Sola Fides?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
I was talking to this Protestant sir online some time ago and it was on the doctrine of Sola Fides.
He of coarse accepted Sola Fides and I as a Catholic don’t. He seemed to have line a ton of scriptures for his idea.
I was wondering if anyone knows of a article or website or something to defend agianst SF? Not only to give the scriptures to defend our postition but, how to deal with all the scriptures they use.

Thanks and God bless.
 
Montie_Claunch said:
I was talking to this Protestant sir online some time ago and it was on the doctrine of Sola Fides.
He of coarse accepted Sola Fides and I as a Catholic don’t. He seemed to have line a ton of scriptures for his idea.
I was wondering if anyone knows of a article or website or something to defend agianst SF? Not only to give the scriptures to defend our postition but, how to deal with all the scriptures they use.

Thanks and God bless.
Click to expand...
scripturecatholic.com/justification.html
scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710chap.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp
 
I think this is the best quote defending the need for works.

Matthew 19
16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? 17 Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 20 The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?
Click to expand...
Many protestants reject the Epistle of James, but they can’t reject the words of Christ.
It blows my mind that one can hold to faith alone after reading this.
The man asks Christ what to do to be saved, and Christ says “keep the commandments” which is clearly “works”.

Cheers,

Arthur
 
Montie_Claunch said:
I was talking to this Protestant sir online some time ago and it was on the doctrine of Sola Fides.
He of coarse accepted Sola Fides and I as a Catholic don’t. He seemed to have line a ton of scriptures for his idea.
I was wondering if anyone knows of a article or website or something to defend agianst SF? Not only to give the scriptures to defend our postition but, how to deal with all the scriptures they use.

Thanks and God bless.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s “sola fide,” not “sola fides.” This is important because in Latin this is an ablative–“by faith alone.” One way to put the classical Protestant position is that salvation is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Traditional Protestants do not believe that the faith God gives ever comes without love and good works coming along. Luther did not believe this, Calvin did not believe it.

One could make a case that Catholics, not Protestants, believe in “sola fides.” That is to say, Catholics believe that you can have the divine gift of faith and not have love or good works. Obviously, in that case, such faith does not save. This is why Catholics and Protestants misunderstand each other. Catholics often think Protestants are saying that someone without charity can be saved. Protestants often think Catholics are saying that even if you have the kind of faith that comes with love, you will not be saved unless you rack up a certain number of points by doing specific good works.

There are real Catholic-Protestant differences on this point, and they have significant consequences. But the points of difference are a lot finer and narrower than most people realize.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Actually it’s “sola fide,” not “sola fides.” This is important because in Latin this is an ablative–“by faith alone.” One way to put the classical Protestant position is that salvation is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Traditional Protestants do not believe that the faith God gives ever comes without love and good works coming along. Luther did not believe this, Calvin did not believe it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that doesn’t keep other Protestants from asserting their own version of “faith alone.” For example, one such Calvinist baptist asserted to me, “ANY work cancels faith. Works is anything that goes beyond belief. That would include love.” :eek:
 
John Martignoni has an excellent talk on Sola Fide and how it is an unbiblical teaching. You can download an mp3 of this talk from his website, www.biblechristiansociety.com. I like it because it uses only the Bible to refute sola fide.
 
bilop said:
I believe Luther rejected the Epistle of St. James as Apocryphal for this very reason.
Click to expand...
Luther didn’t “reject” it ultimately. Luther did dislike the book because he was unable to initially square James and Paul, but in the end it was included in his German translation of the Bible.
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
Yes, but that doesn’t keep other Protestants from asserting their own version of “faith alone.” For example, one such Calvinist baptist asserted to me, “ANY work cancels faith. Works is anything that goes beyond belief. That would include love.” :eek:
Click to expand...
If they’re talking about justification, they’re talking as Paul did in Romans 4 wherein he explains that grace unto justification is not something owed for work done, rather an unmerited gift of God alone and results in faith which justifies.

Rom 4:5 But to the one who *does not work, *but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness…

The Reformed point then is that good works do cannot obtain justification, but faith apart from any work to make oneself worthy.

That said, the Reformed will also heartily agree with James that the faith that justifies is not a faith devoid of good works, but one which spurs one to deeds in faith ie Heb 11.
 
MicahBurke said:
Luther didn’t “reject” it ultimately. Luther did dislike the book because he was unable to initially square James and Paul, but in the end it was included in his German translation of the Bible.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he reject it as part of the canonical NT and call it “an epistle of straw”.

I thought it was only included as an “Apocryphal” book.
 
MicahBurke said:
Luther didn’t “reject” it ultimately. Luther did dislike the book because he was unable to initially square James and Paul, but in the end it was included in his German translation of the Bible.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. He was unable to “initially” square James and Paul. Did he ultimately square them and include James as inerrant Scripture or did he “include” it as something less? Do you have a reference for that approval of James by Luther?
One thing that I simply cannot believe is that God inspired James to write a book that would so clearly refute justification by faith alone - if, in fact, justification were by faith alone. It just makes no sense at all. Why would God inspire him to make such a statement? Again, it makes no sense and the only reasonable conclusion is that justification is not by faith alone. The fact that Luther had so much difficulty finding a meaning to James other than justification is not by faith alone confirms my beliefs.
 
bilop said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he reject it as part of the canonical NT and call it “an epistle of straw”.

I thought it was only included as an “Apocryphal” book.
Click to expand...
Luther had a very low view of the book of James (as well as others) because he could not reconcile the text with his understanding of Paul. He eventually accepted that the book was Canon, but didn’t accept that James (the Apostle) wrote the book. We believe now that James, the brother of the Lord, wrote it, rather than the Apostle.

Regardless of Luther’s opinion of one book or another, the book of James remains in Protestant Bibles and is accepted as Canon. If one wishes to argue that Protestants reject what James states (specifically in the 2nd chapter) they’ll need to actually interact with what they actually say about the passages and not ascribe to them the questions of Luther, as that is a fallacy.

Finally, Luther’s bible was not the source for the King James (which included the Apocrypha, much to fundie’s chagrin) which became the defacto standard of the english speaking Reformation, thus the argument fails.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top