Tertullian mentions Sola Fide?

[cloak_and_stagg]

I have seen evangelicals claim that the “Cainites” Tertullian was attacking in his book “On Baptism” held to sola fide as they rejected the idea that baptism was necessary for salvation. And they claimed that faith in and of itself was “sufficient”.
sites.google.com/site/mattolliffe/articles/tertullians-unusual-testimony-to-the-antiquity-of-faith-alone-1

Correct me if I am wrong but weren’t the Cainites gnostic? So I hardly think they were a good example of Christanity! Also didn’t Gnostics explicitly deny faith alone I mean the Cainites from what I read believed that to get salvation one had to BREAK all 10 commandments

 

[po18guy]

Man-made theology errs when it attempts to overrule the words of Christ. So-called “bible Christians” would be far better off to follow the bible. They risk eternal hell by rejecting the Catholic Church which simply follows the scriptures (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16). Since the New Testament (Covenant), as with our Lord’s tunic, is a seamless garment it must be expressed something like Solus Totus.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I have seen evangelicals claim that the “Cainites” Tertullian was attacking in his book “On Baptism” held to sola fide as they rejected the idea that baptism was necessary for salvation. And they claimed that faith in and of itself was “sufficient”.
sites.google.com/site/mattolliffe/articles/tertullians-unusual-testimony-to-the-antiquity-of-faith-alone-1

Correct me if I am wrong but weren’t the Cainites gnostic? So I hardly think they were a good example of Christanity! Also didn’t Gnostics explicitly deny faith alone I mean the Cainites from what I read believed that to get salvation one had to BREAK all 10 commandments

They were just that, Gnostics. So why should we find any reason to doubt out faith in these matters? This just further reinforces the Church’s teachings, the early Church clearly believed in baptismal regeneration. Our teachings are from the apostles, and Church Father Irenaeus demonstrates that in his “Against Heresies”

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

• Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (Book 3, Chapter 2) [180 A.D]

I don’t see how Evangelicals see this as proof of their doctrine in the early Church because this demonstrates it clearly wasn’t in the early Church.

It must be noted that Evangelicals who hold this, and claim it is 'sola fide", take an over literal view of the doctrine anyway. It is heretical, indeed, but the Evangelical view is not what Luther and the reformers and mainline Protestants even mean when they speak about sola fide.