Some Protestants Don't Believe In Sola Fide

[Juxtaposer]

Check this out:
**
"Regeneration is indispensably necessary before any soul can enter Heaven. In order to love spiritual things a man must be made spiritual. The natural man may hear about them, and have a correct idea of the doctrine of them, but he cannot love them (2 Thess 2:10), nor find his joy in them. None can dwell with God and be eternally happy in His presence until a radical change has been wrought in him, a change from sin to holiness; and this change must take place on earth.**

That which takes place at regeneration is the reversal of what happened at the fall. The one born again is, through Christ, and by the Spirit’s operation, restored to union and communion with God: the one who before was spiritually dead, is now spiritually alive (John 5:24). Just as spiritual death was brought about by the entrance into man’s being of a principle of evil, so spiritual life is the introduction of a principle of holiness. God communicates a new principle, as real and as potent as sin. Divine grace is now imparted. A holy disposition is wrought in the soul. A new temper of spirit is bestowed upon the inner man. But no new faculties are created within him, rather are his original faculties enriched, enobled, and empowered."

**by A W Pink

**Ok. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Protestant theology, regeneration is like sanctification. A W Pink, a Protestant theologian, is saying that sanctification is nesseccary for salvation. He would also say that we are saved ny faith. However, as I understand, it is by faith that we are initially saved. After that we must remain faithful. In other words, action is required on our part, and we may, therefore, lose our salvation. An interesting thing that I have learned from another Protestant theologian is the meaning of the word commonly translated into faith. The word for faith in Greek is πίστη (pistis), and means not only faith, but faithfulness as well. Therefore, we are saved by faith AND faithfulness. Hans Kung also recognizes that there are no longer dissagreements between Catholic and Protestant theologians. It’s all just semantics. So would anyone dissagree with the statement “we are initially saved by faith”?

 

[Juxtaposer]

So… does anyone care about this? The obtaination of salvation was Luther’s underlying reason for reformation. The fact that now Protestants and Catholics actually agree on this (even if they don’t know it) suggests a very ecumenical future.

 

[Bill_Rutland]

Hi JUX,

A W Pink was a hard-core Calvinist. I think that you are misunderstanding his words. Brother Pink believes that we are elected by the sovereign will of God, before creation, to heaven or to hell. He believes that men have no choice in the matter. In the end this leaves no room for faith because faith implies freewill and Calvinists like Pink deny freewill.

I have no doubt that brother Hans finds little disagreement with Protestant theologians, but you would be hard pressed to find a Protestant (other than a very liberal one who accepts all faiths as equally valid) who believes that the differences between Catholic and Protestant soteriology is “all just semantics.”

For conservative Protestants the doctrines of the Reformation, sola fide and sola Scriptura are alive and well. For instance I have heard many Protestants say, “I believe that Catholics can be saved.” It sounds nice on the surface, but when I question them, what they mean is that Catholics who reject the efficacy of the sacraments and hold to the Bible as their sole authority can be saved. In other words, Catholics who are Protestant in everything but name.

I don’t want to sound harsh, but part of the problem is that many Catholics and Protestants are theologically ignorant, they simply don’t know enough to know that they have differences. This is something which anti-Catholic James White decries all the time, and I must say that I am in agreement with him on this point (as scary as that may be).

Catholics and Protestants differ in their theology in several significant and insurmountable ways:

1. Although both Catholics and Protestants believe that “we are initially saved by faith,” the Protestant believes that nothing else is necessary but faith. There is a battle raging in Evangelical circles right now over what is called Lordship Theology, which actually is so bold as to think that we need to follow Jesus as Lord and not just as Savior.
2. Protestants believe that when one is saved, God changes His mind about the sinner, but not real change happens in the sinner himself, this is called forensic justification. The late Protestant theologian Augustus Strong describes forensic justification this way:

*The declaration that the sinner is restored to God’s favor, has its ground, not in the sinner’s personal charter or conduct, but solely in the obedience and righteousness of Christ, to Whom the sinner is united by faith. Thus Christ’s work is the procuring cause of our justification, in both its elements. As we are acquitted on account of Christ’s suffering of the penalty of the law, so on account of Christ’s obedience we receive the rewards of the law. *(Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (The Judson Press); Page 858.)

In his book *Absolutely Free *Zane Hodges, former professor of New Testament Greek and exegesis at *Dallas Theological Seminary, *states that it is possible to experience “saving faith” only for a moment and then turn utterly away from Christ even to the point of denying Him, but still remained saved.(Zane Hodges, *Absolutely Free! *(Zondervan, 1989); pages, 107-119)

Catholics, on the other hand, believe that at baptism the sinner is infused with Christ’s righteousness and that it is the responsibility of the believer to follow Christ in loving obedience. The two sides could not be farther apart.

PAX CHRISTI

Bill

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

“So would anyone dissagree with the statement “we are initially saved by faith”?”

Yes, I would disagree. We are not saved by Faith. We are saved by God’s Grace. We are saved through our Faith not by our Faith. We are able to receive that Grace from God, because of our response in Faith. that Grace then shows forth in our actions or works.

Is a light bulb lit because of the wires connected to it or because of the invisible electricity? How do we know that the light bulb is lit? Because of the effects that the light emitted from the light bulb has on objects in the room.

 

[Juxtaposer]

“So would anyone dissagree with the statement “we are initially saved by faith”?”

Yes, I would disagree. We are not saved by Faith. We are saved by God’s Grace. We are saved through our Faith not by our Faith. We are able to receive that Grace from God, because of our response in Faith. that Grace then shows forth in our actions or works.

Is a light bulb lit because of the wires connected to it or because of the invisible electricity? How do we know that the light bulb is lit? Because of the effects that the light emitted from the light bulb has on objects in the room.

Ok… yeah… through faith, not by it. It’s not as though we can force God to save us by having faith. Again - semantics.

 

[Sherlock]

Juxtaposer,

First off, I would be highly suspicious of anything Hans Kung has to say. He is not regarded as an orthodox Catholic theologian.

Secondly, I would echo what Br. Rich wrote: “We are not saved by Faith. We are saved by God’s Grace. We are saved through our Faith not by our Faith.” And I would also agree with Bill Rutland’s excellent post.

It is simply too simplistic to say that the differences are merely “semantics”: words mean things, and are not necessarily interchangeable. Nor can real differences in soteriology be resolved by changing the words used to disguise the differences.