Why say "Sola Fide"?

[SyCarl]

Paul here is talking about the spiritual gift of faith, not the initial faith by which we are justified. In the previous chapter Paul was talking about the gifts of the spirit, one of which could be faith although it is not necessarily the gift everyone receives… Remember that chapters and verse were not in the original text. He then goes on to tell us that none of the spiritual gifts, including faith, help us unless we have love. Then in the next chapter he goes on to talk about which spiritual gifts are most important. So verses you mentioned are not in the context of our original faith. We cannot receive any of the spiritual gifts, including faith unless we have saving faith first.

 

[EZweber]

Paul here is talking about the spiritual gift of faith, not the initial faith by which we are justified. In the previous chapter Paul was talking about the gifts of the spirit, one of which could be faith although it is not necessarily the gift everyone receives… Remember that chapters and verse were not in the original text. He then goes on to tell us that none of the spiritual gifts, including faith, help us unless we have love. Then in the next chapter he goes on to talk about which spiritual gifts are most important. So verses you mentioned are not in the context of our original faith. We cannot receive any of the spiritual gifts, including faith unless we have saving faith first.

My point in this thread is that the reasons stated for not using the supernatural virtues terminology can be equally applied to the faith terminology.

 

[lanman87]

One other thing to think about is that for the American Evangelical church the terms profession of faith, trust in Christ, believe, and be born again are all synonymous with conversion.

In the Southern Baptist church, for instance, nobody is considered born again/saved/a Christian until they profess faith in Christ and you can’t be baptized until you profess faith in Christ. That is why most sermons and services end with an appeal for people to “trust Christ”, “be Born again”, “make a profession of Faith” and so on. This conversion experience is often described as head knowledge turning into a heart change.

So in a sense, when we say we are saved by faith alone we mean we are saved by conversion alone. We also understand that not all professed conversions are legitimate and real conversions. There is actually a movement in evangelical circles to not do alter calls anymore because they produce so many false conversions that result in a temporary infatuation with Christ instead of a deep and abiding faith in Christ.

 

[JonNC]

I have had a few discussions about faith with non Catholics on this forum, and I have found that all who I have discussed this with have meant by “faith” essentially what I mean (as a Catholic) by “faith, hope, and love.” So I have been wondering, why say faith alone can save us instead of saying faith, hope, and love? I have noticed misunderstanding about this even on the part of those who say only faith. It seems to imply that intellectual assent alone is sufficient for salvation. @JonNC and @Hodos might be interested in this.

If a Catholic understands the divide, Akin does here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

 

[EZweber]

If a Catholic understands the divide, Akin does here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

So why don’t you use that terminology, given the two reasons Akin gives? I would also say that the Catholic definition of faith seems to be predominant today. I have heard people (not Catholics) make an argument based on the Catholic definition alone, and when challenged, they will retreat to the Protestant definition. Not to mention that, the Catholic definition allows for greater precision.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

If a Catholic understands the divide, Akin does here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

So why don’t you use that terminology, given the two reasons Akin gives? I would also say that the Catholic definition of faith seems to be predominant today. I have heard people (not Catholics) make an argument based on the Catholic definition alone, and when challenged, they will retreat to the Protestant definition. Not to mention that, the Catholic definition allows for greater precision.

I can’t speak for others. I believe the difference in soteriology isn’t as deep a cavern as ecclesiology.
Pope Benedict said that Luther is not wrong if the understanding of faith alone does not exclude hope and charity. I believe Benedict had in mind Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:6.

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

 

[po18guy]

Romans 3:28

Through the reformers’ inventing this doctrine of men, much of the truth and beauty of the faith was cast aside or diluted until it is barely recognizable.

 

[Hodos]

So your view of justification is faith as in intellectual assent alone? I am having a hard time seeing where you are coming from here.

No. My replies already clearly rejected that.

 

[EZweber]

. My replies already clearly rejected that.

Okay, please clarify. What is your (unpacked) view of justification? Mine is above.

 

[fhansen]

I have had a few discussions about faith with non Catholics on this forum, and I have found that all who I have discussed this with have meant by “faith” essentially what I mean (as a Catholic) by “faith, hope, and love.” So I have been wondering, why say faith alone can save us instead of saying faith, hope, and love? I have noticed misunderstanding about this even on the part of those who say only faith. It seems to imply that intellectual assent alone is sufficient for salvation. @JonNC and @Hodos might be interested in this.

They use faith more in the sense of “trust” as well as intellectual assent. Catholics do this as well at times but strictly speaking the “theological virtue” of faith is intellectual assent, which is why James could say that even demons believe, and Paul could say that if he had a faith that could move mountains but had not love, he was nothing, and also, “now these three remain, faith, hope, and love, but the most important of these is love.”

Either way, unless faith is qualified as including all three virtues then it cannot justify us. The error in Sola Fide is in believing that faith is all God wants from us in order to see us as justified, as if it stands in for or replaces or excuses the need for authentic righteousness/justice in man rather than that faith is the doorway to real justice because it’s the doorway to God, the communion with Whom is what makes man just to the extent that we continue to abide in Him and He in us, determined by whether or not we decide to remain in that communion and not break it: demonstrated and effected by how we believe and how we live-how we may succeed at or fail to love.

The Church actually teaches that we’re saved by love alone in a sense: by Love and unto love, such that she can teach the following on our particular judgment, quoting St John of the Cross:
"At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love." (CCC 1022)

We’re saved by faith, via faith, through faith. Faith pertains to the “knowledge of God” that Jesus came to definitively reveal and restore to fallen man-so we may believe: in His existence, in His goodness and trustworthiness, in His lavish love for man in spite of our sin. This knowledge is to be developed in us such that we possess the direct intimate knowledge, to the extent we’re able, described in the New Covenant prophecy of Jer 31:34:
"No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD."

That knowledge speaks of relationship or communion, essentially the relationship that Adam shattered at the Fall, the relationship that we’re lost without, the relationship that is finally and fully consummated in the Beatific Vision. This is a relationship that begins or is established with faith. From that communion, a state of justice in itself, God begins to do a work in us:
"I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." Jer 31:32

 

[Hodos]

Again, I clearly provided reference to my view of justification. You just didn’t like the explanation because you felt that a passage in 1 Corinthians discussing the relationship between believers in the context of orderly worship better describes justification, which doesn’t fly with Paul’s treatise on the actual process of justification.

 

[EZweber]

Again, I clearly provided reference to my view of justification. You just didn’t like the explanation because you felt that a passage in 1 Corinthians discussing the relationship between believers in the context of orderly worship better describes justification, which doesn’t fly with Paul’s treatise on the actual process of justification.

I’m sorry but I read all of your posts and I still don’t understand exactly how you believe we are justified exept by faith alone, which at the moment is a very vague term. Can you please restate clearly?

 

[Hodos]

No. I think the quotes from the Augsburg Confession spoke very clearly on the topic and is in concert with Paul’s treatise on justification in Romans. If you choose to purposefully obfuscate the matter, that is on you. If however, you would like further discussion then I would recommend the Defense of the Augsburg Confession for your reading, specifically, Article IV, lines 48-57.

 

[EZweber]

No. I think the quote from the Augsburg Confession spoke very clearly on the topic

The thing is, it used faith. That would work, but I have no clear idea what they (or you) mean by faith. It doesn’t include love as part of itself but necessarily causes love? You have nothing to lose exept vagueness by defining your terms, and if a term needs defining in this discussion, it is faith.

 

[JonNC]

Hodos:

No. I think the quote from the Augsburg Confession spoke very clearly on the topic

The thing is, it used faith. That would work, but I have no clear idea what they (or you) mean by faith. It doesn’t include love as part of itself but necessarily causes love? You have nothing to lose exept vagueness by defining your terms, and if a term needs defining in this discussion, it is faith.

How about this?

… faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words.
Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God’s grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!

Martin Luther

 

[fhansen]

> … faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words. Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God’s grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!

That was good. Now, if he had just kept the virtues separated as the Church does then we’d probably have less confusion about the role of faith in the Christian world. Either way, the supreme role and necessity of love cannot be emphasized enough when explaining the gospel

 

[EZweber]

How about this?

… faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God.

Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it.

Which is it? The first is not sufficient without our cooperation. I will stretch the second to include love, in which case it is sufficient with God’s help. (which is presumed)

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

How about this?

… faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God.

Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it.

Which is it? The first is not sufficient without our cooperation. I will stretch the second to include love, in which case it is sufficient with God’s help. (which is presumed)

Both…

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

> … faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words. Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God’s grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!

That was good. Now, if he had just kept the virtues separated as the Church does then we’d probably have less confusion about the role of faith in the Christian world. Either way, the supreme role and necessity of love cannot be emphasized enough when explaining the gospel

How can they be separate? Are charity and hope possible without faith? Is faith sincere and a justifying faith without love and hope?

Luther’s commentary Galatians 5:6,

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

 

[fhansen]

How can they be separate? Are charity and hope possible without faith? Is faith sincere and a justifying faith without love and hope?

Paul and Augustine apparently thought otherwise. Hope and love may require faith but faith can exist without either. But, yes, a “justifying faith”, if there is such a thing, would necessarily entail the virtues of hope and love along with it in order to justify. And so I still say it’s better to see them as separate. Not only are some led by the SF doctrine to virtual antinomianism and/or a belief in a one-time act of faith with eternal salvation resulting but even at that, works/cooperation with God are the criteria for judgment according to some passages; we shouldn’t take away from the necessity of the works mentioned in Eph 2:10 or those done “for the least of these” in Matt 25. These are neither works of the law nor do they constitute a righteousness amounting to filthy rags. These works are to do God’s will, to “invest one’s talents”, with grace and justice increasing within man as the result-and contributing to his salvation being worked out.

It’s just not necessary nor theologically correct IMO to hang onto the faith alone doctrine. The Council of Trent addressed various errors associated with this doctrine and offers a much more sound and balanced viewpoint on justification as I see it. Either way, it would be more accurate to say that one is justified by love alone than by faith alone.