Why say "Sola Fide"?

[ltwin]

The gospel is gutted of its meaning when the will of man is removed from the equation. Strict determinism has never been part of the Christian faith since the beginning-or from Eden on for that matter. The following is part one of my posts from another forum, with a poster explaining and defending the Calvinist position and with me responding.

I don’t see “strict determinism” or the “Calvinist position” in my post. Of course man’s will is not removed from the equation.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t see “strict determinism” or the “Calvinist position” in my post. Of course man’s will is not removed from the equation.

I apologize then. I thought you were taking the position that believers were regenerated first of all, after which they will rightly.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

I like St. Augustine’s use of the term “given”. It is a gift, unmerited by us, but merited by Christ.
That said, what he says does not contradict that we grow in grace (sanctification).

After being justified we work out our salvation with God, as He prompts and enables us by grace to perform acts He’s prepared for us-acts that contribute to meriting eternal life. We can still refuse, however; we can refuse to work out our salvation, having no works to merit it with.

Absolutely, although I would say “are a response” instead of “contribute”.
Free will. We have the ability to reject grace.

 

[fhansen]

But in this case you’d say that resisting that grace wouldn’t affect ones eternal destiny?

 

[JonNC]

But in this case you’d say that resisting that grace wouldn’t affect ones eternal destiny?

What do you mean by resist? Job resisted Christ’s call. So did the rich man?
Christ made available to us the means of grace, specifically confession/Absolution and the Eucharist, to help us return to grace.

 

[fhansen]

To reject grace, as you had put it.

 

[Darryl_B]

That is not where his anger lay ___insert word

 

[fhansen]

I disagree that there is even such a thing as Protestant theory. There is Baptist theology, and Calvinist theology, and Lutheran theology, etc.

That said,
The alone in faith alone is not a statement that says this is all you need. The alone means it is the only way we access justification.
We are saved by GRACE alone. The alone means there is no other way we receive salvation. Salvation is by Grace alone.
Through faith alone in Christ alone. Justification is by faith alone. The alone means there is no other way to access justification. The second alone means simply that it is only through Christ’s passion, death and resurrection that salvation possible at all.
It is all by grace, not by anything we do or have earned.
Now, justification frees us to do the good works He places before us to do. We are bound to obey His commands, not out of fear, but out of joyful thanksgiving for His grace and love of our neighbor.
We can from this point, of course, choose to reject His grace (free will), and turn from saving faith.
Do good works save us? No. Grace saves us.
Are good works (love of our neighbor) necessary? Yes. Why? Because it is the command of our Savior. We can choose to reject His call and live in sin, but we receive salvation through grace.

But the potential dilemma, caused by Sola Fide, remains. Another poster from another forum, asking a question that involves some common confusion in an OP entitled, " Matthew 5:17-20 and Acts 15:5-29":

"Hello everyone! I am wondering how different theological traditions reconcile these two passages. Please let me know what tradition you are from and how you go about making sense of this apparent contradiction."

It’s amazing the different nuances in beliefs that are brought up in the answers given by people from all varieties of denominations-and the way they struggle to ensure that faith alone isn’t compromised.

 

[fhansen]

The righteousness that is required is Christ’s righteousness, which we receive by faith.

And this is where a problem can arise IMO. Does faith alone disassociate man from the obligation to be righteous himself, to be who God created him to be?

I think we all agree here that we’re obligated to believe, and that we can reject that gift of faith, denying that obligation, and we agree that faith can move us to righteousness, but that we can likewise fall back away, returning to a state of injustice. So it seems that man, still imperfect, must remain cognizant of his obligation to be righteous, while nonetheless striving to fulfill that obligation by the Spirit, under grace?

 

[Cathoholic]

Itwin . . . .

In justification, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us.

This is true in what it asserts.

The next question would be do you think in justification, Christ’s righteousness
is MERELY imputed to us?

Or do you think Christ’s righteousness is transforming too?

 

[lanman87]

And this is where a problem can arise IMO. Does faith alone disassociate man from the obligation to be righteous himself, to be who God created him to be?

1 John has a lot to say about this topic

6 If we say, “We have fellowship with Him,” yet we walk in darkness, we are lying and are not practicing the truth. 1 John 1:6

3 This is how we are sure that we have come to know Him: by keeping His commands. 4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” yet doesn’t keep His commands, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly in him the love of God is perfected.This is how we know we are in Him: 6 The one who says he remains in Him should walk just as He walked. 1 John 2:3-6

9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:9-10

Throughout 1 John - love, righteousness and obedience are given over and over again as evidence of who is “In Christ”. Notice that those things don’t place us “in Christ” but show us/ourselves who is “In Christ”.

I don’t know of any denomination who says that we are not to live a life of personal righteousness. Anyone who claims to be “born of God” but lives a sinful lifestyle without being convicted of the sin, come under the discipline of God, and/or does not practice righteousness is deceiving themselves and are not the Children of God. This is the belief of the vast majority of American Evangelical Christendom.

Any true child of God will love and honor His Heavenly Father and seek after His Kingdom and His righteousness. And while we are imperfect and the Spirit is still at war with the flesh and still commit sins, we strive to be like Christ by repenting and turning from our sins and, above all, loving God and loving others. If fall into sin and refuse to repent or do not come under the discipline of God it shows that we are not really children of God. Hebrews 11:8

Knowing that Christ is at the right hand of the Father intervening on our behalf and that our righteousness is not found in ourselves but in His Righteousness gives us the freedom to live a life free of fear of not measuring up to the standard that is required. It gives us the freedom to actually love others instead of doing “loving things” out of duty or obligation in the hopes of meeting God’s standard for righteousness or out of fear that we are not meeting that standard.

I’m not saying that you or anyone else is doing “loving things” out of duty or obligation instead of love. But when you believe that your doing “loving things” adds to or takes away from your ultimate salvation then doing things out of fear of not gaining or losing salvation is one of possible reasons for doing “loving things”.

 

[fhansen]

And yet, man is obligated to love. Even if the actions that come from that love should not be done out of a sense of obligation. So it continues to be good for man to know of his obligation, in the case that he’s not fulfilling it. Man’s own will remains the wild card. And man can forfeit his justified state.

And at the end of the day when we can all agree with this statement, “At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love”, I think we’ll be pretty united on the basics of the gospel.

 

[lanman87]

And yet, man is obligated to love. Even if the actions that come from that love should not be done out of a sense of obligation. So it continues to be good for man to know of his obligation, in the case that he’s not fulfilling it.

I would say one of the beautiful things about the Gospel is that it gives us the Freedom to truly love without having “What is in it for me?” in the back of our minds.

 

[fhansen]

I like that. Free to love. It’s actually acceptable and required by our faith, whereas society may well even look down on it. And we’re enabled by God to do it. One of my favorite quotes from a 3rd or 4th century bishop, Basil of Cesarea:
"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

 

[ltwin]

The next question would be do you think in justification, Christ’s righteousness
is MERELY imputed to us?

Or do you think Christ’s righteousness is transforming too?

God does transform us, namely through regeneration (simultaneous with justification) and progressive sanctification. Justification, though, is not based on God’s work within us, but on what Christ has done. “We are righteous because we are in Christ; we are not in Christ because we are righteous.”

 

[ltwin]

And this is where a problem can arise IMO. Does faith alone disassociate man from the obligation to be righteous himself, to be who God created him to be?

I don’t think so. We cannot comprehend our obligations toward God unless we first walk with him by faith.

So it seems that man, still imperfect, must remain cognizant of his obligation to be righteous, while nonetheless striving to fulfill that obligation by the Spirit, under grace?

Yes, we should strive to make our calling and election sure.

 

[fhansen]

Getting back to man’s obligation to be righteous, not merely declared righteous, in order for him to be made just in the eyes of God, I have to say that I still cannot directly equate the idea of “having faith” with “having fruit”, as if the two are necessarily inseparable or part and parcel of the same quality.

 

[fhansen]

Cathoholic:

The next question would be do you think in justification, Christ’s righteousness
is MERELY imputed to us?

Or do you think Christ’s righteousness is transforming too?

God does transform us, namely through regeneration (simultaneous with justification) and progressive sanctification. Justification, though, is not based on God’s work within us, but on what Christ has done. “We are righteous because we are in Christ; we are not in Christ because we are righteous.”

But, to be clear, you’d agree that man’s will plays a part in that regeneration and justification, in that he can refuse the gift, the grace that seeks to regenerate?

 

[fhansen]

fhansen:

And this is where a problem can arise IMO. Does faith alone disassociate man from the obligation to be righteous himself, to be who God created him to be?

I don’t think so. We cannot comprehend our obligations toward God unless we first walk with him by faith.

So it seems that man, still imperfect, must remain cognizant of his obligation to be righteous, while nonetheless striving to fulfill that obligation by the Spirit, under grace?

Yes, we should strive to make our calling and election sure.

Yes, and shirking this obligation can mean to end up shirking God-and our eternal relationship with Him.

 

[Cathoholic]

Itwin . . .

“We are righteous because we are in Christ; we are not in Christ because we are righteous.”

Where is your quote from Itwin?

And can you think of a third option that you did not present in your formula?