Why say "Sola Fide"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EZweber
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ltwin said:
If we were to say that justification is based on love, then we were to open the possibility of trying to perform works of charity in order to merit justification, which is the exact opposite of Protestant teaching. We love others not because we seek merit or reward or because we want to be saved but because Christ loved us. Loving others simply because you feel obligated by divine commandment and fear divine punishment is not love and it is not justifying.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it is much easier understood, especially in interfaith dialogue. If I remember correctly, the last major figure that believed in “works alone” was Pelagius. Love does not imply servile love. Personally I would be fine with using faith if I was discussing something with a Protestant as long as it was clear that faith was synonymous with the supernatural virtues, but discussing with Catholics, I would get jumped on pretty quickly. Also, I have never heard a Catholic mix up supernatural love and servile love. I have heard Protestants mix up “saving” and “intellectual” faith numerous times. I have heard people make a point based on intellectual faith alone, and when challenged, retreat to saving faith. As far as Catholics go, I would support bringing the Greek word agape into English and using that for supernatural love.
 
To avoid confusion with Catholics on this board, I like to use the term “living faith alone” or “saving faith alone”. When we say faith alone we mean that we are saved by trusting in Christ alone for our salvation and not anything we do as a result of trusting Christ. We are saved by the work of God changing our heart and the result of having a changed heart is the things we do out of love for God and love for others.

For instance, we don’t believe that church attendance or giving to help someone poor causes, increases, or keeps our salvation but we also believe that if someone has a “living, saving faith” that they will attend church and help the poor.
 
lanman87 said:
To avoid confusion with Catholics on this board, I like to use the term “living faith alone” or “saving faith alone”.
Click to expand...
I’m curious, why not just use our terminology when talking to us? If it’s correct.
 
lanman87 said:
For instance, we don’t believe that church attendance or giving to help someone poor causes, increases, or keeps our salvation but we also believe that if someone has a “living, saving faith” that they will attend church and help the poor.
Click to expand...
I would argue that it forms a habit of love. This is another reason to use the supernatural virtues terminology. I would have used a Protestant term if I could find one, but the closest I could get would be to say a habit of faith, which sounds bizarre.
 
EZweber said:
I’m curious, why not just use our terminology when talking to us? If it’s correct.
Click to expand...
Because then you would think I’m Catholic 🙂

I think mainly to differentiate from any faith + equation. You could say faith+love, but to us faith without love isn’t a saving faith. You could say faith + obedience. Again, to use faith without obedience isn’t a saving faith. You can say Faith+Works, but to us faith without works isn’t a saving faith.

The reason we don’t want any faith + equation is because any I put after the + indicates that I am somehow saving myself by my actions. Love, Obedience and works (and worship and prayer and many other things) flow from a changed heart and trust of Christ. We are saved by the changed heart and trust of Christ not what flows from that changed heart and trust of Christ. To say otherwise means that in some way, we are trusting in ourselves and our abilities instead of trusting in Christ.
 
lanman87 said:
Love, Obedience and works (and worship and prayer and many other things) flow from a changed heart and trust of Christ.
Click to expand...
A changed heart flows from love. In anything except this, the heart is related to love. The brain is related to faith.
 
EZweber said:
Wouldn’t that also apply to the action of faith?
Click to expand...
No, because we aren’t saved by those actions of faith. I know if is a tough distinction to make if you aren’t used to thinking that way. These are the two sentences I would use.

You can spend your life doing good works and if you don’t have a changed heart and trust in Christ alone for your salvation then you are saved.

If you claim to have a changed heart and trust in Christ alone for your salvation and you don’t Love God and Love others then you are deceived and your claim of faith is false.
 
EZweber said:
A changed heart flows from love. In anything except this, the heart is related to love. The brain is related to faith.
Click to expand...
That is not how we see it. We a true faith as more than intellectual assent. It is both intellectual assent and a heart changed by God.
 
lanman87 said:
You can spend your life doing good works and if you don’t have a changed heart and trust in Christ alone for your salvation then you are saved.
Click to expand...
“If I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. If I have faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” I’m just quoting off the top of my head here.
 
lanman87 said:
That is not how we see it. We a true faith as more than intellectual assent. It is both intellectual assent and a heart changed by God.
Click to expand...
When anyone talks about the heart, exept on this subject, they are talking about love.
 
EZweber said:
“If I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. If I have faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” I’m just quoting off the top of my head here.
Click to expand...
As I said, Faith without love isn’t a saving faith. Even great faith without love isn’t a saving faith.
 
lanman87 said:
As I said, Faith without love isn’t a saving faith. Even great faith without love isn’t a saving faith.
Click to expand...
My point is that what you say about not talking about love seems more applicable to faith.
 
EZweber said:
So why not love alone? I don’t support saying this, but love presupposes faith.
Click to expand...
Because love alone leaves trusting Christ out. We all have the ability to love, even the strongest atheist. Faith alone suppose that the faith is in Christ and God changes our hearts from an unloving heart of stone to a loving heart of flesh.

Edit to add: when I talk about love I’m talking about a Love of God and the Love of others he gives us by the working of the Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
EZweber said:
I am totally incapable of love without Christ.
Click to expand...
You are capable of human love. You can love your family and friends. But that is what I mean. Christ and our trust in Him is what gives us the capacity to love. Any claim of faith without that love is leaving Christ out of the equation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top