Why say "Sola Fide"?

[fhansen]

catholicray:

I simply think that Luther’s Sola Fide was more compatible with the sinner who remained a sinner than the modern interpretation or at least a modern conservative interpretation which comes across as nearly Catholic to me. Of course this is an opinion I’m not qualified to be a voice of scholarship on this particular matter. You’re more than welcome to share your own insight.

I suggest you read the letter. It is impossible to interpret Luther ‘s as permission to remain in sin as it is sometimes painted by some Catholic apologists.
Here is the specific portion of the letter:

1. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but
   the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the
   true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only
   imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let
   your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the
   victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we
   are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We,
   however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new
   heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that
   through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the
   sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to
   kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think
   such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager
   sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

http://www.projectwittenberg.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/letsinsbe.txt

And following is a very good ecological Luther’s meaning.

Confessional Gadfly: What does "Sin Boldly" mean?

To be honest Jon, that article wasn’t so satisfactory or convincing. While a believer will continue to struggle with sin, not everything we do in life is sin, especially after conversion. I’m not sure exactly where Luther was coming from with that letter. Others have suggested it was hyperbole, for one, but it doesn’t necessarily seem to be consistent with other commentary by him. Anyway, at first glance IMO there’s too much emphasis on man’s wretchedness, and also on God’s forgiveness; faith is made to override sin or stand against or oppose our unrighteousness to such an extreme that no sin can stand against faith. Which is absurd if that’s the intent. While faith and sin may not be strictly mutually exclusive, as love and sin are, persistent sin must have the consequence of opposing and diminishing faith.

 

[JonNC]

fhansen:
To be honest Jon, that article wasn’t so satisfactory or convincing. While a believer will continue to struggle with sin, not everything we do in life is sin, especially after conversion. I’m not sure exactly where Luther was coming from with that letter. Others have suggested it was hyperbole, for one, but it doesn’t necessarily seem to be consistent with other commentary by him. Anyway, at first glance there’s too much emphasis on man’s wretchedness, and also on God’s forgiveness; faith is made to override sin or stand against or oppose our unrighteousness to such an extreme that no sin can stand against faith. Which is absurd if that’s the intent.
[/quote]

The article mentions Romans 7 in passing, but for me this is exactly what Luther is speaking of.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual. But I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I work, I understand not. For I do not that good which I will: but the evil which I hate, that I do. 16If then I do that which I will not, I consent to the law, that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it: but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will is present with me: but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. [ 19 ]For the good which I will, I do not: but the evil which I will not, that I do. [ 20 ]Now if I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it: but sin that dwelleth in me.

Perhaps St. Paul is more eloquent, his is a teaching letter while Luther’s was a personal letter written to someone who could fill in what’s implied, but the message is the same.

Sin should not drive us to inaction.

 

[fhansen]

Yet before that, in Rom 6:1-2 Paul says:

“What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may increase? Certainly not! How can we who died to sin live in it any longer? We therefore were buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life.

For if we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection. We know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. For anyone who has died has been freed from sin.”

And continues in Rom 8:12-13:

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live."

It would certainly make sense that, in Rom 7:25, the deliverance that comes through Jesus Christ our Lord would not merely involve imputed righteousness and the forgiveness of sin associated with it, but also the ability to overcome unrighteousness, and replace it with righteousness. All due to and because of Him. And as I edited in to my last post later:

While faith and sin may not be strictly mutually exclusive, as love and sin are, persistent sin must have the consequence of opposing and diminishing faith.

 

[JonNC]

Yet before that, in Rom 6:1-2 Paul says:

“What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may increase? Certainly not! How can we who died to sin live in it any longer? We therefore were buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life.

For if we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection. We know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. For anyone who has died has been freed from sin.”

And continues in Rom 8:12-13:

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live."

And amen to this. Remember, Luther is writing a personal letter to someone who doesn’t need all of the gaps filled in.

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but
the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the
true, not an imaginary sin.

Don’t sit back. Be a preacher of mercy. Proclaim God’s grace, even if in your efforts to do so there is sin.

While faith and sin may not be strictly mutually exclusive, as love and sin are, persistent sin must have the consequence of opposing and diminishing faith.

Of course it does. Why would you think Luther thought or Lutherans think otherwise?

Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.

http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#IV. Good Works.

 

[fhansen]

That was good, thanks. So it’s not believed that we can merely appeal to our faith or to Christ’s work as freeing us from condemnation when we persevere in sin, nor that we must simply resolve to believe more firmly, as the antidote to sin when it arises.

 

[JonNC]

That was good, thanks. So it’s not believed that we can merely appeal to our faith or to Christ’s work as freeing us from condemnation when we persevere in sin, nor that we must simply resolve to believe more firmly, as the antidote to sin when it arises.

Believe more firmly? Sure, guided by the Spirit, but that guidance includes seeking out word and sacrament. “If we confess our sins, …”

 

[Johan]

I’m a new user on this forum, but all the more active on the CARM boards (under the same username). I would characterize myself as a non-denominational Evangelical, although Catholics tend to label me a “Calvinist” because of my beliefs. When I say “faith alone”, I mean exactly that. We are not saved on the basis of qualities we possess, such as altruistic love, but solely on the basis of the redemptive work of Christ, received by faith. That is why Paul stated to the Ephesians that they have been saved (perfect tense) by grace, through faith, but without works (Eph. 2:8-9). I would also define “faith” as trust, and a good example of this definition in practice is Paul’s description of Abraham’s unwavering faith in God (Rom. 4:18-22). Another example is the faith of the centurion who asked Jesus for help (Matt. 8:5-13).

 

[fhansen]

I’m a new user on this forum, but all the more active on the CARM boards (under the same username). I would characterize myself as a non-denominational Evangelical, although Catholics tend to label me a “Calvinist” because of my beliefs. When I say “faith alone”, I mean exactly that. We are not saved on the basis of qualities we possess, such as altruistic love, but solely on the basis of the redemptive work of Christ, received by faith. That is why Paul stated to the Ephesians that they have been saved (perfect tense) by grace, through faith, but without works (Eph. 2:8-9). I would also define “faith” as trust, and a good example of this definition in practice is Paul’s description of Abraham’s unwavering faith in God (Rom. 4:18-22). Another example is the faith of the centurion who asked Jesus for help (Matt. 8:5-13).

Does this trust then necessarily end up producing works-a faith that is not alone, etc? I just noticed you were new here. Welcome!

A question that repeatedly comes up from Protestants on another non-Catholic forum, BTW, is whether or not the justified person is still obligated to obedience/righteousness, other than the obligation of having faith. Another question. Did Abraham’s faith in God mean that he had to act? That he was completely unable to resist His command?

 

[Johan]

Does this trust then necessarily end up producing works-a faith that is not alone, etc? I just noticed you were new here. Welcome!

A question that repeatedly comes up from Protestants on another non-Catholic forum, BTW, is whether or not the justified person is still obligated to obedience/righteousness, other than the obligation of having faith. Another question. Did Abraham’s faith in God mean that he had to act? That he was completely unable to resist His command?

Thank you! Well, that depends on what you mean by “obligated”. Paul goes to great lengths to demonstrate that Abraham was justified by faith long before the Akedah (the binding of Isaac), to the point that he even speaks of Abraham in the same context as the ungodly-yet-righteous “who do not work but trust God” (Rom. 4:5). Abraham was obligated to act (otherwise God would not have commanded him), but not for the attainment of righteousness. Instead, those commands were intended for his walk with God (Gen. 17:1), i.e., what we today would call “his Christian life” or more theologically, his “sanctification”. Could he have resisted to obey? Most certainly. He was a sinner like the rest of mankind. Faith is like a propeller driving us forward and compelling us to act, but it is not always that we are navigating correctly.

In Ephesians 2, Paul makes the same division between the role of works before and after salvation. He emphasizes that the Ephesians (and by extension, all believers) have been saved (σεσῳσμένοι, exactly the same verb form as the “famous” κεχαριτωμένη in Luke 1:28, apart from gender and number) according to the triadic formula “by grace, through faith, without works”, but then turns around and states that we have been (re)created in Christ “for good works … so that we would walk in them” (NASB). It appears that Paul is alluding to Abraham’s journey here.

 

[fhansen]

Ok, the question still arises though. Is man obligated to be righteous, in terms of refraining from sin, obeying the law (however it’s conceived) and doing good works? To put it another way, what might happen if Abraham had refused, or a believer doesn’t do the good works prepared for him in advance as per Eph 2?

 

[TULIPed]

Is man obligated to be righteous, in terms of refraining from sin, obeying the law (however it’s conceived) and doing good works?

Yes.

A related question is - if they (the good works) happen - who gets the credit - for them? I think Catholics would say that - post conversion (which is all due to God), we share credit for our good works via our cooperation with God. We, via our free will, can choose to cooperate with God, and in so doing merit the “grace needed for sanctification”. (RCC 2010)

Reformed Protestants would say that, left to ourselves, we don’t have the ability to do any good works, In fact - without Christ - even good works that we do are “as filthy rags”. Therefore, we would say that we are incapable of cooperating with God without Christ, and therefore, all credit - all merit - goes to Christ, and Christ alone. Said another way, our “ability to do good works is not at all of [our]selves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.” (Westminster Confession, Chapter 16)

 

[Johan]

Ok, the question still arises though. Is man obligated to be righteous, in terms of refraining from sin, obeying the law (however it’s conceived) and doing good works? To put it another way, what might happen if Abraham had refused, or a believer doesn’t do the good works prepared for him in advance as per Eph 2?

I thought I had addressed that question already, but perhaps not as clearly as I should. A key verse is Rom. 4:5:

However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Among the details we notice in this verse alone is that righteousness is credited/imputed rather than “infused”, and that it is credited to the ungodly. This means that justification is “counterfactual” in the sense that God credits us with righteousness, although we are not inherently righteous. It is common in Evangelical lingo to call this kind of righteousness “alien”. Paul also states that this righteousness is credited to those who do not perform works (of obedience, we have to assume), but trust God. So we are righteous only in the sense that God declares us righteous. Obedience to the Law or any other “standard” will not make us righteous before God. Not because it is theoretically impossible, but because we are sinners who often do what we are not supposed to (and vice versa).

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (Gal. 2:21, NIV)

We are obligated to do good works, but not in order to attain or maintain righteousness. It is often asked, as a hypothetical scenario: what would happen if we fail to do what God has commanded us to do? Since our righteousness is credited by grace rather than according to our works, my likewise theoretical answer would be: nothing. God justifies us despite our disobedience rather than because of our obedience. However, this is an academic question since those who belong to Christ are also indwelled by the Spirit, and those who are indwelled by the Spirit will (although not consistently) perform good works.

 

[fhansen]

Reformed Protestants would say that, left to ourselves, we don’t have the ability to do any good works, In fact - without Christ - even good works that we do are “as filthy rags”. Therefore, we would say that we are incapable of cooperating with God without Christ, and therefore, all credit - all merit - goes to Christ, and Christ alone. Said another way, our “ability to do good works is not at all of [our]selves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.” (Westminster Confession, Chapter 16)

Yes, Catholic teaching, as well, maintains that it’s all a matter of grace, whether faith or works or anything else. So the credit goes to God, merited by Christ. And yet, interestingly IMO, since man can cooperate or refuse to do so, and because God wants man’s will involved, we please Him as we do cooperate-and our justice or righteousness is confirmed and grown as we do. This is as God has deemed it to be good, in His wisdom.

The will of man, since Eden, has been the “prize” so to speak. And this makes sense of all the drama between then and now, and the way that God has patiently coaxed and molded and cultivated humankind, through His chosen people, to the point where we should be more capable of choosing good over evil, life over death, light over darkness, once grace also moves to draw us. Anyway, this choosing, this will of man being involved, is central to God’s plan while anathema to Calvinists, perhaps. But it’s the central aspect of man’s justice /righteousness, what makes us right in the eyes of God, as we enter communion with Him. And from this understanding the Church can teach:
1731Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil , and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

And it’s kind of hard to believe that the works God has prepared for us in advance amount to “filthy rags”. Why would God prefer man to remain in a state of injustice? Why wouldn’t He want better for us than that? Did He actually create man to be a sinner? The New Covenant teaches that the problem with man is his separation from God (‘apart from whom we can do nothing’); this is the essence of Original Sin, that which makes man dead, wounded, corrupted, fallen, unable to control himself and refrain from sin. Jesus came to rectify this situation, by reconciling man with God, a relationship that was shattered at the Fall.

 

[fhansen]

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (Gal. 2:21, NIV)

Then we’re not really obligated it would seem. And it’s that potential inconsistency in being obedient that points to the possibility of man failing to be just, failing to follow and do God’s will. I mean, even if faith is the sole criteria for man’s state of righteousness, how much inconsistency can man be involved in before we assume that either he really has no faith or that God simply overlooks injustice altogether which would amount to antinomianism?

Anyway, if our righteousness is not really connected to our… righteousness, such that we can be unrighteous and still be righteous in God’s eyes, what does it mean to be cleansed at justification, and made new creations, with God’s Spirit dwelling within? Hasn’t justice/righteousness been imparted or infused in some manner? Hasn’t a change taken place? Righteousness cannot be gained by the law but that certainly doesn’t mean that righteousness cannot be gained, the gaining of which being an object of faith, as if God couldn’t accomplish that, and wouldn’t want to. As I see it that’s just what the New Covenant proposes to do, to not merely forgive lawlessness but to ‘place God’s law in our minds and write it on our hearts.’

 

[TULIPed]

Anyway, this choosing , this will of man being involved, is central to God’s plan while anathema to Calvinists, perhaps.

We believe that there’s choice - just that without Christ, we are incapable of making the right choice - or at least choices that are pleasing to God. In any case - it would seem that an argument could be made that the only choice that matters - at least from an eternal perspective - is His, no?

“… even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will…”

Practically speaking - as you look at your life, and the way that your life has changed - has slowly been sanctified - how much credit can you really take? How much did you really “cooperate”? In my case at least, the biggest changes in my life towards sanctification have happened almost in spite of my cooperation. In fact, the more I would “try” to do the right thing, the more frustrated I became. It feels a lot like this:

“I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.”

The only way - at least for me - that sanctification happens, is because of Christ living in me. He gets all the credit.

 

[fhansen]

In Catholic teaching we can’t possibly do it without Him, and yet we can still refuse to go along with the program at any step along the way-refusing to come when called, or turning back away again at any point later on. Another teaching I’m familiar with aligns well at times with my own experience over the course of my life:

"409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"makes man’s life a battle:

The whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God’s grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity."

This not only aligns with experience but also with many teachings in Scripture where we’re admonished, warned, encouraged, etc, to do the right thing, remain faithful, remain in Christ, refrain from sin, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, invest ones talents, be perfect, be vigilant, strive, persevere, generally with the loss of the kingdom at stake for us. The elect will be the elect, of course, but until the end of the day we cannot predict who they are, who will persevere and who will not. And unless the will of man plays a role, however small, none of human history in this fallen world even makes sense.

 

[TULIPed]

This not only aligns with experience but also with many teachings in Scripture where we’re admonished, warned, encouraged, etc, to do the right thing, remain faithful, remain in Christ, refrain from sin, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, invest ones talents, be perfect, be vigilant, strive, persevere, generally with the loss of the kingdom at stake for us.

Agreed. Human nature is a slippery slope though, no? From “The Screwtape Letters”, C.S. Lewis:

“Your patient has become humble; have you drawn his attention to the fact? All virtues are less formidable to us once the man is aware that he has them, but this is specially true of humility. Catch him at the moment when he is really poor in spirit and smuggle into his mind the gratifying reflection, ‘By jove! I’m being humble’, and almost immediately pride—pride at his own humility—will appear. If he awakes to the danger and tries to smother this new form of pride, make him proud of his attempt—and so on, through as many stages as you please. But don’t try this too long, for fear you awake his sense of humour and proportion, in which case he will merely laugh at you and go to bed.”

Is there danger in taking credit for “not refusing” or “persevering”? Where do we draw the line on our cooperation and God’s work? Why not ere on the side of caution? The electron has mass - but relative to the nucleus, it’s so insignificant as to be meaningless.

 

[fhansen]

Is there danger in taking credit for “not refusing” or “persevering”?

Not IMO, just humility in fact. Catholics in general simply aren’t the type to brag about what they’ve done, as per the Pharisee in Luke 18:11, but rather concerned with what they’ve failed to do, if anything. I’d rather error in thinking that I must continue to strive than thinking I’m honoring God by resting on my laurels. Jesus’ burden is light, not non-existent.

What if God, from the beginning, has had a plan to produce something, something better, something great, out of the mess that this world so often is? What if He wants the wheat to participate in being wheat rather than tares, for their own good, loving us lavishly and knowing our potential but not predetermining its outcome. What if He wants us righteous, as He created us to be, or even more for us yet, rather than just deciding to save some of us otherwise worthless wretches and send the rest to eternal torment?

 

[TULIPed]

but rather concerned with what they’ve failed to do

I’m literally laughing out loud - in a good way. This is one thing - among many - that we Calvinists share with our Catholic brothers and sisters.

And by the way - I didn’t mean to insinuate that you guys bragged about your merit. In fact I’ve never in my life heard a Catholic do so. My musings were purely theological in nature.

Great conversation as always.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks. Everyone’s been quite civil and I appreciate that. Anyway, just meant to point out that the theological musing doesn’t necessarily have to hold true in every case.