What does "Sola Fide" mean?

[jane_doe]

I am attempting to understand what Sola Fide means for Sola Fide Christians. To me, it seems as if the claim is that salvation comes solely by faith and devoid of any actions on your part. But talking to Sola Fide Christians, for the most part they they do believe that actions are necessary for salvation (actions such as having faith and repenting). I then ask and am informed that they define “works” to specifically mean unnecessary actions “ABC” and not required actions “XYZ”. This strikes me as a word game.

i’m sure that I am misunderstanding somewhere. Could someone help me out?

NOT PROTESTANT BASHING!!! This thread is for the purpose of understanding our Sola Fide brothers in Christ, not to insult/bash them.

This conversation spawned from this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1029277&page=3

 

[adf417]

:coffeeread:

 

[alwayswill]

I am attempting to understand what Sola Fide means for Sola Fide Christians. To me, it seems as if the claim is that salvation comes solely by faith and devoid of any actions on your part. But talking to Sola Fide Christians, for the most part they they do believe that actions are necessary for salvation (actions such as having faith and repenting). I then ask and am informed that they define “works” to specifically mean unnecessary actions “ABC” and not required actions “XYZ”. This strikes me as a word game.

i’m sure that I am misunderstanding somewhere. Could someone help me out?

NOT PROTESTANT BASHING!!! This thread is for the purpose of understanding our Sola Fide brothers in Christ, not to insult/bash them.

This conversation spawned from this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1029277&page=3

a quick understanding may be summarized like this:

first ;no sola fide beliving Christian ever believed mere mental assent saved anyone

the Faith that is a gift from God saves:
(For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.-Ephesians 2)

is not a useless faith James 2:20
and is not the faith of demons v19
and is not a dead faith :v17:

The faith that is a gift from God save you and changes you
so that faith leads to salvation plus works:

in contrast to faith plus works leads to salvation

explained this way by Jimmy akin:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

"So Trent does not condemn the (good) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required

The canon only condemns sola fide if it is used so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required to attain justification. **Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fides formula and not the formula itself…"

…** If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.
The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants[SUP]5[/SUP] is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon.

Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term faith in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema. -------------

 

[jane_doe]

Forgive me, but I am still very confused.

first ;no sola fide beliving Christian ever believed mere mental assent saved anyone

Note: assenting is an action.
So if sola fide is not that, what is it?

and is not a dead faith :v17:

A not dead faith is a faith that involves action.

The faith that is a gift from God save you and changes you
so that faith leads to salvation plus works:

Accepting faith is an action.

explained this way by Jimmy akin:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

"So Trent does not condemn the (good) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required

The canon only condemns sola fide if it is used so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required to attain justification. **Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fides formula and not the formula itself…"

…** If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.
The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants[SUP]5[/SUP] is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon.

Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term faith in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema. -------------

I’m not Catholic, so talking the Council of Trent doesn’t do a lot for me…

 

[Jennifer132]

IMO, and this just my opinion (and you will find many varying opinions among Protestants depending on which denomination they grew up in, and their personal beliefs), is that sola Fide is sometimes used to contrast with the perceived Catholic view of salvation, which is often misconstrued to be a works-based salvation. So a Protestant may say, “Catholics believe you have to earn your salvation; by contrast, I believe in sola fide.” What they are really saying is that they believe there is nothing you can do to merit your own salvation, only believe that Jesus did it all when he died for our sins. In other words, being a good person, going to church or doing good deeds will not get you into heaven.

That being said, not many Protestants would agree that someone who merely “believed” and “got saved” one night at a rally and then never gave it another thought is indeed saved. They might say that if your life never changed, you were never saved in the first place. The mark of true salvation is good works.

The confusion surrounding the various Protestant understandings of salvation is one of many reasons I am now converting to Catholicism after a lifetime of being an evangelical Christian.

 

[ajcstr]

the Faith that is a gift from God saves:
(For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.-Ephesians 2)

Why not continue with verses 9 and 10 ??

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Does not say we WILL walk in them as a result of our faith.

is not a useless faith James 2:20
and is not the faith of demons v19
and is not a dead faith :v17:

I not in agreement with using James this way - this implies there are different kinds of faith. What he is saying is that faith must be accompanied by works. That works complete faith. Did Abraham have faith? We would agree he did and I’m assuming it was not any of the “kinds” of faith you list, yet James says that Abraham was justified by his works.

Now I would add that in this case James is talking about what I believe most protestants would term “sanctification”. Catholics would too, but we view justification as a process which includes sanctification so we use the same words but with different understanding of them.

And moreover the Catholic would say that Paul in Ephesians is speaking of initial justification where we would agree that it is a free gift from God and is totally separated from works. This is why we would agree that no one can earn their salvation. But when talking about the sanctification side of justification that we believe James is speaking of, works become our response to God’s grace.

The faith that is a gift from God save you and changes you
so that faith leads to salvation plus works:

in contrast to faith plus works leads to salvation

I don’t know that these two statements need to be in contrast of each other - I would say both are true. It’s all by God’s grace, but we must cooperate with it (and I think the cooperation part is the real stickler because I would guess you would not agree with that).

 

[rcwitness]

IMO, and this just my opinion (and you will find many varying opinions among Protestants depending on which denomination they grew up in, and their personal beliefs), is that sola Fide is sometimes used to contrast with the perceived Catholic view of salvation, which is often misconstrued to be a works-based salvation. So a Protestant may say, “Catholics believe you have to earn your salvation; by contrast, I believe in sola fide.” What they are really saying is that they believe there is nothing you can do to merit your own salvation, only believe that Jesus did it all when he died for our sins. In other words, being a good person, going to church or doing good deeds will not get you into heaven.

That being said, not many Protestants would agree that someone who merely “believed” and “got saved” one night at a rally and then never gave it another thought is indeed saved. They might say that if your life never changed, you were never saved in the first place. The mark of true salvation is good works.

The confusion surrounding the various Protestant understandings of salvation is one of many reasons I am now converting to Catholicism after a lifetime of being an evangelical Christian.

Well said. And I don’t get bothered at all that Evangelicals, or Protestants in general, preach that we are justified apart from works. This is not really against the Catholic Teaching. We are Initially Justified by faith apart from the merit of friendship with God. It is the grace of God which brought Jesus to mankind and willed Him to suffer for the forgiveness of sins. Now when we accept this gift, we are converted in heart and then live by faith and faith no longer is apart from works, but accomplished through work. So while we always have recourse to Reconciliation in Jesus, to live by faith is to do the work of faith.

Therefore, like you say, it’s when Protestantism positions itself against what the Church Teaches, that it causes offense to the Church of God. If they are able to understand St James’ Teaching about faith and works, they should also understand the Church’s.

 

[MT1926]

Just hanging out to read all of the good replies.

Personally all of the conversations I’ve had about Sola Fide seem to end up being a word game. Like some one mentioned above it is quite often just misunderstanding the definitions. I have yet to speak with anyone, in their right mind, who believes you can be saved one day and then go party with the devil and still make it to heaven.

James 2:18-19
18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.

 

[ajcstr]

I have yet to speak with anyone, in their right mind, who believes you can be saved one day and then go party with the devil and still make it to heaven.

I have spoken with someone (when I was much earlier along in my understanding) who did use the phrase “no matter what you do”. I was having a crisis of faith at the time and he was explaining to me the Gospel as he understood it. In fairness to him though I do remember him also saying “Now that doesn’t mean I can go out and start blowing people away” so I wish I was more astute to pressure him some more.

Now what I have found is that once you get past the verbiage, for the most part, Catholics and Protestants are not as far apart in principle as it would seem.

 

[spiderweb]

I had similar difficulties with Sola Fide as the OP so a while back I started this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=951033

Perhaps some of the conversation there will help. Part of the problem is that there are multiple understandings of Sola Fide so you won’t get a universal view.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

This is a topic where i feel like most Protestants and Catholics are essentially saying the same thing, just speaking different languages.

We both acknowledge that works naturally come from true saving faith.

It’s only the extremist(some Calvinists) That seem to think you can accept Jesus as Savior and live 90 years and never lift a finger for the Lord, yet still be saved.

 

[jane_doe]

I had similar difficulties with Sola Fide as the OP so a while back I started this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=951033

Perhaps some of the conversation there will help. Part of the problem is that there are multiple understandings of Sola Fide so you won’t get a universal view.

I’m not looking for a universal view, because I acknowledge the diversity in people’s beliefs. I’m just looking for at least 1 person’s views.

 

[Cathoholic]

jane_doe. You asked . . .

I am attempting to understand what Sola Fide means for Sola Fide Christians.

jane_doe

It can mean anything proverbially from “soup to nuts”.

You must ask them individually.

With private interpretation found in Protestantism, there is no human corrective authority available (except themselves as individuals who read their Bible) so it has led to a multitude of opposing interpretations all allegedly invoking the “authority of the Holy Spirit” yet coming to diametrically opposing conclusions at times.

---

alwayswill

You said:

no sola fide beliving Christian ever believed mere mental assent saved anyone

This is just not the case. I had an experience as a kid at a campfire Bible camp, “accepted Jesus” and got a little card saying from that date forward, I was saved (and I couldn’t lose this salvation by the way).

(Someone might say “Well this wasn’t a mere “intellectual” assent but a grace too!”)

I HAVE talked to some including a minister who when faced with a refutation of sola fide said “faith doesn’t mean faith” in 1st Corinthians 13:13 when he could not Biblically support his tradition of mere mental assent.

1st CORINTHIANS 13:3b, 13 3 (If I) . . . have not love, I gain nothing. . . . 13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Not 1st Corinthians 13:13.

NOT 1st CORINTHIANS 13:3b, 13 Phantom Verse 3 (If I) . . . have not love, I gain heaven anyway as long as I have faith. . . . 13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is faith so it fits into a man-made tradition of faith ALONE.

(Incidentally. We frequently hear portions of 1st Corinthians 13 read at many weddings so I pray that those frequent hearings of these verses may always help us to have an authentic view of salvation.)

---

Now I know how you would counter this (I think) alwayswill.

You (or others) would say . . . “Wait a minute Cathoholic”.

This gift of “faith” isn’t a MERE mental assent.

OUR “faith” is from God! Our “faith” is a gift of grace. Our “faith” is “not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast”.

EPHESIANS 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.

Grace IS the gift of God to be sure.

Jesus is the author and finisher of or faith (Hebrews 12:2).

Our faith is a GRACE.

(Some) Protestants would say that—“our faith is a GRACE and not a mere intellectual assent!” (And I’m OK with that by the way—Although I’m not OK with the “alone” part of “faith alone” though because it is un-Biblical).

But WHY as Protestants allow yourselves to claim your faith as being a grace . . . . means it is not your own mere faith or mere intellectual assent . . . . but then make the counter-claim . . . . . .

. . . . You Catholics think you get to go to Heaven based upon your own mere works.

We Catholics don’t think we get to Heaven based upon our own mere good works! And if some Catholic DOES say that, there ARE authoritative admonitions to dispel that erroneous thought. Not just private interpretation.

We Catholics AFFIRM the need for faith.

We Catholics also AFFIRM there is a human natural dimension to faith, but also a supernatural GRACE dimension too! (See CCC 153 and 154)

We Catholics affirm we cannot of our own accord, “work” OUR way to Heaven.

But when we Catholics say the same thing about our works as you do your faith (there is a mere human dimension, but ALSO a necessary GRACE dimension) we get admonished by some of our Protestant friends and Protestant family members.

These Protestant friends are not blind to the grace dimension of faith.

But they seem to be blind to a grace dimension of WORKS.

They seem to be blind to a grace dimension of WORKS —of God working IN YOU both for the will and good pleasure of the Father (see Philippians 2:13).

They seem to be unable to see a grace dimension of WORKS—It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives IN ME (See Galatians 2:20).

They seem to be oblivious to a grace dimension of WORKS—Even right there in the same letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians

EPHESIANS 2:10, 3:20-21 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. . . . .20 Now **to him who by the power at work within us **is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen.

They seem to be blind to the fact that our mere works cannot save us, but Christ working in and through us is different.

Yet they see for themselves “faith” correctly in a natural realm AND a supernatural realm (which is correct but incomplete), ADD the word “ALONE” to faith when “ALONE” is not in the Scriptures, and DENY the salvific existence of Grace WORKS.

That’s what I have a problem with. The unscriptural nature of sola fide.

Sola fide is a tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God.

 

[ajcstr]

We Catholics don’t think we get to Heaven based upon our own mere good works! And if some Catholic DOES say that, there ARE authoritative admonitions to dispel that erroneous thought. Not just private interpretation.

We Catholics affirm we cannot of our own accord, “work” OUR way to Heaven.

Unfortunately, I at one time did not understand this correctly and I know that there are other Catholics that believe one CAN earn salvation which helps to confuse the matter.

Of course this does NOT reflect church teaching.

 

[Contarini]

I am attempting to understand what Sola Fide means for Sola Fide Christians. To me, it seems as if the claim is that salvation comes solely by faith and devoid of any actions on your part. But talking to Sola Fide Christians, for the most part they they do believe that actions are necessary for salvation (actions such as having faith and repenting). I then ask and am informed that they define “works” to specifically mean unnecessary actions “ABC” and not required actions “XYZ”. This strikes me as a word game.

This is indeed one of the tough questions about sola fide.

First a basic definition: sola fide is short for “justification by grace through faith alone.” That is to say, that God declares human beings to be righteous or “just” in his sight based (on their part) only on their belief in his promise of forgiveness in Christ. In traditional Protestant theology (as in Catholic theology) faith is itself a gift. But, of course, in Catholic theology love and the good works that flow from it are gifts of grace too (“when God rewards our merits, he crowns his own gifts”). So that’s not a point of difference between Protestants and Catholics, though many Protestants mistakenly think it is.

The difference is in how we receive the gift. Is faith the only thing that occurs on our part that functions as a cause in God’s declaration that we are righteous? According to “classical” Protestantism (Lutheranism and Calvinism, and many other Protestants too fr that matter), yes it is. However, classical Protestantism also insists that faith will always go along with love and good works. It’s just that love and good works aren’t causes of our justification–they are effects.

“Faith” means more for Protestants than for Catholics–it refers not just to believing what God has revealed, but to accepting God’s gift of grace. Just as it always flows out into good works, so it can only occur in someone who is truly repentant.

Why then make such a sharp separation? What is all the fuss about? Well, I don’t think the sharp conceptual distinction is necessary. But I understand the reason for it. Luther was concerned that if you allow anything intrinsically good in us, even though it’s wrought by the Spirit, to be a cause of our justification, then you’re looking to yourself rather than to Christ for salvation.

One way to look at this is in terms of the traditional concern with presumption on the one hand and despair on the other. In Catholic terms, the Protestant doctrine of assurance looks like presumption. But Luther reworked the concept. For him, trust in any intrinsic goodness in oneself will always lead either to despair that we aren’t good enough or to presumption that our imperfect goodness is enough to warrant God’s declaration that we are righteous. Because the work God does in us is always incomplete in this life, resting on God’s transformation of us as a basis for God’s acceptance of us will always lead either to arrogant self-righteousness or to despair.

Edwin

 

[MT1926]

I have spoken with someone (when I was much earlier along in my understanding) who did use the phrase “no matter what you do”. I was having a crisis of faith at the time and he was explaining to me the Gospel as he understood it. In fairness to him though I do remember him also saying “Now that doesn’t mean I can go out and start blowing people away” so I wish I was more astute to pressure him some more.

Yep exactly. I have heard the phrase “no matter what you do” as well. That’s when I start giving examples. The usual response to my example is “well if a person does that they were never saved to begin with.” That’s when I usually tell them the person in my example was a preacher for 50 years and brought thousands to Christ before doing those things. That’s when they usually respond with oh yeah well what about Purgatory?

Now what I have found is that once you get past the verbiage, for the most part, Catholics and Protestants are not as far apart in principle as it would seem.

This I totally agree with. I have found the only reason the verbiage exists is because neither person wants to admit the other person has truth in their argument.

 

[Contarini]

This is a topic where i feel like most Protestants and Catholics are essentially saying the same thing, just speaking different languages.

We both acknowledge that works naturally come from true saving faith.

There is a natural tendency, sure. But Catholics (and Wesleyans) believe that one can choose not to live out one’s faith and so lose it. The Reformed believe that genuine saving faith can’t be lost. Lutherans are tricky but basically believe that you can lose faith but that a deliberate serious sin does not in itself cause you to do so. And pretty much all Protestants believe, contra the Council of Trent, that loss of grace means loss of faith. Catholics historically believe that you can have faith but not be in a state of grace. That is most basically what sola fide is denying.

It’s only the extremist(some Calvinists) That seem to think you can accept Jesus as Savior and live 90 years and never lift a finger for the Lord, yet still be saved.

Real Calvinists are less likely to believe this, because they understand faith and good works as both the effect of God’s sovereign grace. The people most likely to believe this are certain Baptists who believe in “eternal security” without predestination. Hence, they’re forced to admit the possibility that one could choose to have faith and then choose to live a sinful life.

Edwin

 

[Wesrock]

a quick understanding may be summarized like this:

first ;no sola fide beliving Christian ever believed mere mental assent saved anyone

the Faith that is a gift from God saves:
(For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.-Ephesians 2)

is not a useless faith James 2:20
and is not the faith of demons v19
and is not a dead faith :v17:

The faith that is a gift from God save you and changes you
so that faith leads to salvation plus works:

in contrast to faith plus works leads to salvation

explained this way by Jimmy akin:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

"So Trent does not condemn the (good) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required

The canon only condemns sola fide if it is used so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required to attain justification. **Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fides formula and not the formula itself…"

…** If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.
The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants[SUP]5[/SUP] is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon.

Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term faith in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema. -------------

I think we can delve deeper, as there seems to be disagreement in some circles about God’s Providence over our will. Do we assent and cooperate in works and can these works provide merit (with God as the prime mover on grace that initiates works and meritorious only because of Christ)? Or does God move all the saved to works in an irresistible way?

 

[alwayswill]

I think we can delve deeper, as there seems to be disagreement in some circles about God’s Providence over our will. Do we assent and cooperate in works? Or does God move all the saved to works in an irresistible way?

that is covered under Sola Gratia

this thread is Sola Fide

 

[Wesrock]

I see whether or not we assent to and cooperate in works as essential to whether we should speak of being saved sola fide or by faith and works, even if it’s the case that Protestants and Catholics are closer on the issue than many think. It at least seemed a relevant point to the discussion, as there are differences between what different denominations mean by sola fide.