Why say "Sola Fide"?

[lanman87]

Where is your quote from Itwin?

I’m not Itwin but I can tell you that I’ve heard this quote dozens of times from different preachers/teachers. I’m not sure who the quote is attributed to (maybe Itwin does) but it is a common saying in American Evangelical churches.

Edit to add; The scriptural quote that inspired this saying is Romans 3:22

22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:

The context is that all mankind is receives the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, whether they are Jewish or Greek (non-Jewish).

 

[ltwin]

Where is your quote from Itwin?

It’s from an article I read a while back, and I made a note of that quote. But I can’t remember where I got it now.

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

What third option do you have in mind?

 

[ltwin]

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.

They are inseparable. Faith is the means by which we are united to Christ and indwelt with the Spirit, and it is the means by which we stay united to Christ, etc. The consequence of this is the that Holy Spirit is at work within us, and the evidence of that sanctifying work is the fruit of the Spirit and love for Christ and for our fellow man.

Of course, we can resist and reject this grace. We can grieve the Holy Spirit. We can fall into unbelief and sin and break fellowship with Christ.

 

[ltwin]

Yes.

10 characters

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic . . .

Where is your quote from Itwin?

Itwin . . . .

It’s from an article I read a while back . . .

Fair enough. Just wondering.

 

[Cathoholic]

Itwin . . . .

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

Cathoholic . . . .

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?

The answer here of course is BOTH. We are covered AND transformed with the righteousness of Christ.

.

Itwin . . .

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

Cathoholic . . .

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

Formula . . .

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

Itwin . . . .

What third option do you have in mind?

Since justification is not a mere moment alone, but a moment followed by a lifelong process the third option takes that into consideration.

The third option affims we get into Christ without merit. But once IN HIM, then WITH HIM AND IN HIM, you must merit (according to your state in life).

Not on your own.

 

[lanman87]

Since justification is not a mere moment alone, but a moment followed by a lifelong process the third option takes that into consideration.

If justification means “Declared to be just” or “declared to be right with God” or “declared righteous”… at what point is this declaration made?

 

[Dougbro1]

at what point is this declaration made?

I would say the declaration is gradual, as one is purified gradually. As purification on Earth or in Purgatory happens (Yes, I know you probably don’t believe in that, but I’m just going to put that here for the sake of discussion, with all the Catholics here), one is gradually declared more just, more righteous, more right with God until Heaven, where one will be completely justified. To the other Catholics: you may correct me if this is wrong, but this is how I’ve seen it for a while now.
Hope that makes sense!

 

[fhansen]

We’re actually forgiven of injustice and then also made just, at baptism. We are heaven-bound if dying at that point, provided sincere faith was present. But if we live on, we’re to then remain in that state of justice, and expected to grow in it. Actual justice/righteousness: faith, hope, and love, are gifts that are given to us, but in nascent seedling form at that point, a form which is then to be cultivated, nurtured, and grown- and increasingly “owned” by ourselves as we work together with He who works in us-and with He who will ultimately judge the outcome, of how well we did with what we were given.

1274 The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord (“Dominicus character”) "for the day of redemption."86 "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life."87 The faithful Christian who has “kept the seal” until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life "marked with the sign of faith,"88 with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence , or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati) ; since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68

"A new creature"

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"69 member of Christ and co-heir with him,70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.71

 

[lanman87]

So the declaration of righteousness is temporary? The moment we commit our first sin after the declaration of God our righteousness is lost? The declaration is null and void.

 

[Dougbro1]

If we were declared righteous based on when we were first sinless, then some atheists were declared righteous at some point, since they had no sin as infants and could have been baptized, but then chose not to believe in God after.

 

[fhansen]

We must walk the walk, not just talk. But the Church teaches that some sins are less serious, while others lead to death (1 John 5), because by their very nature they oppose love of God and/or neighbor-and so destroy love in us. So yes, the wages of sin remain death-that’s what separated man from God to begin with.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

We’re expected to take the gift-forgiveness and cleansing and being made new creations-and do something with it besides remain in or return to our old way of life.

 

[lanman87]

We’re expected to take the gift-forgiveness and cleansing and being made new creations-and do something with it besides remain in or return to our old way of life.

So being a new creation can be temporary as we can change ourselves back into what we were before we were changed. And adoption can be temporary as we can be “un-adopted” and no longer be children of God???

 

[Dougbro1]

So being a new creation can be temporary as we can change ourselves back into what we were before we were changed. And adoption can be temporary as we can be “un-adopted” and no longer be children of God???

Unfortunately, yes. It is possible for even devout Christians of all denominations to fall away from their faith and stop believing in God for the rest of their lives. While it’s not as common, it does happen. You can have faith-filled teens lose their faith in their late adulthood. It is sad. Change can go more than one way.

 

[fhansen]

Yep, just like real life adoptions. Of course- God doesn’t want us to be His children unwillingly. He doesn’t force salvation upon us.

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." Heb 6:4

A bit of hyperbole IMO, but the principle comes thru.

 

[lanman87]

Unfortunately, yes. It is possible for even devout Christians of all denominations to fall away from their faith and stop believing in God for the rest of their lives. While it’s not as common, it does happen. You can have faith-filled teens lose their faith in their late adulthood. It is sad. Change can go more than one way.

What if they don’t fall away from faith in that they really do believe in Christ and want to live a holy life, but struggle with sin? Let’s say they are an addict of some kind (alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, video games/internet to the point they are consumed with it, porn…) and in their heart they want to overcome this sinful behavior yet they still find themselves falling again and again.

Are those people changed back into what they were before or un-adopted as children of God? Do they keep changing from justified to not-justified and back to justified as they go through the cycle of sin/repentance/struggle/sin?

 

[Dougbro1]

It’s not a matter of going justified-to-not-justified-and-back-again. As I said before, it’s more of a process, because people become more and more purified, and hence more justified. The purification/justification process takes longer; it doesn’t flip back and forth as if it were a one-time thing being done and undone. So whether you will be completely justified boils down to what the state of the person’s soul at death.

 

[lanman87]

It’s not a matter of going justified-to-not-justified-and-back-again. As I said before, it’s more of a process, because people become more and more purified, and hence more justified. The purification/justification process takes longer; it doesn’t flip back and forth as if it were a one-time thing being done and undone. So whether you will be completely justified boils down to what the state of the person’s soul at death.

Let’s say the “Christian drug addict” gets clean and lives a life of repentance and faith. Then one night, for whatever reason, they fall and do heroine or whatever then spend the next month doing heroine every night. It is my understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong) that, according to Catholic doctrine, the person would most likely go to hell if they died in that state because the knew doing heroine habitually is a mortal sin and did it anyway. That the only way to avoid hell is to go to a priest and confess and do whatever the priest says to do for absolution.

In most Evangelical churches that same person would go to heaven if they died while in that state. The reason being is that we aren’t saved by an absence of sin we are saved by the presence of Christ, being “In Christ” if you will. If that person was truly born-again and wanted to live a life of holiness but struggled with sin to the point that they were addicted and fighting and died, the righteousness of Christ would overpower the unrighteousness of the struggling sinner and he would be welcomed into the Kingdom as a loved Child of God.

 

[fhansen]

While you haven’t described the Catholic position quite accurately (addictions don’t necessarily constitute mortal sins, for one thing), the Evangelical position you described is seen as a problem by many of us-because it effectively separates justification from actually being just. As some non-Catholics have maintained here, their version of sola fide means that justice or righteousness cannot be separated from faith; a true believer will not turn towards sin so long as he remains in Christ and Christ in him. And sincere repentance would be required if a total abandonment of God had occurred at some point.

While most agree, however, that serious and persistent sin is basically the equivalent of turning our backs away from God and salvation, we might struggle to know how much and how seriously and how persistently one must sin in order to break our relationship with Him-and there are many different views on this whole issue-from antinomianism to an outright acknowledgment that God requires our obedience, in response to His grace.

Either way we know that God is merciful and judges by the heart, which He, alone, knows. The Church has offered the following guidelines that we can use to help us identify and understand this issue better tho:

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130

1857 For a sin to be mortal , three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

 

[lanman87]

While you haven’t described the Catholic position quite accurately (addictions don’t necessarily constitute mortal sins, for one thing), the Evangelical position you described is seen as a problem by many of us-because it effectively separates justification from actually being just. As some non-Catholics have maintained here, their version of sola fide means that justice or righteousness cannot be separated from faith; a true believer will not turn towards sin so long as he remains in Christ and Christ in him. And sincere repentance would be required if a total abandonment of God had occurred at some point.

The one caveat in my analogy is that the person truly wants to be free of the sin and is in a struggle against it. If there was no struggle against the sin then that would be an indication of an insincere or non-existent faith and the person isn’t “in Christ”. It is one thing to struggle against sin and another thing to totally embrace it.

In the Evangelical world Christians do sin, and sometimes very badly, but true Christians also struggle to overcome sin and are remorseful and ashamed. But some sins have such a powerful pull that remorse and shame aren’t enough to overcome the sin. That is why we rest on the righteousness of Christ. While we imperfectly struggle against sin, He perfectly overcomes our sin by His Love, Mercy and Grace.