Why say "Sola Fide"?

[ronb]

The only place you’ll find the doctrine of Sola Fide (“faith alone”) in Scripture is in the version of the Bible where Luther purposely added (on his own authority) “alone” to Romans 3:28. He considered the Epistle to St. James to be an “epistle of straw” because it states plainly that “faith without works is dead, being alone.” I don’t see why Protestants get hung up on “works.” “Works” (to me) just means obedience to God.

More on this Catholic Answers … When 'Faith Alone' Meets 'Scripture Alone' | Catholic Answers

The problem, though, with asserting sola fide based on sola scriptura is that the idea that justification is by faith alone is not only not stated in Scripture—it directly contradicts what Scripture states.

James 2:24 is the only verse in the Bible that uses the phrase “faith alone”—and it says that people are “justified by works and not by faith alone.” This is one reason why Martin Luther wanted the epistle of James removed from the Bible. Luther himself admitted that sola fide contradicts James … “I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle.” …

Thus, instead of adjusting his theology to fit Scripture, Luther’s solution was to relegate the book of James to the canonical cheap seats, declaring flatly in his Preface : “I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books.” … Luther famously [declared] James to be an “epistle of straw.”

Romans 3:28 was the closest verse in Scripture that seemed to prove Luther’s novel idea concerning justification. However, it lacked the all-important word alone that would have makes Luther’s sola doctrine true. Once again, though, rather than adjust his theology, Luther adjusted the Bible. In his translation of Romans, Luther added the word alone to verse 3:28 … in order to make it appear that he had biblical support.

When challenged about this rather transparent translational bias, Luther [responded]… “If your papist wants to make so much fuss about the word sola [alone] tell him this, ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says that a papist and an ass are the same thing.’”

It seems, then, that Luther himself was guilty of doing the very thing he accused the Catholic Church of doing: elevating his theology above the Bible. In his attempt to justify (pun intended) his doctrine of sola fide , Luther both mistranslated the content of, and modified the canon of, Scripture—the one authority he claimed to stand upon while rebelling against the Church’s teaching.

 

[ltwin]

I don’t see why Protestants get hung up on “works.”

Because if we include works as the basis of salvation then people could boast about what they have done–when in reality we cannot save ourselves. Salvation is God’s work in us.

Works cannot be the basis of our justification because God demands perfection and none of us is perfect. We all sin, and one sin makes us guilty of the whole law (James 2:10).

“Works” (to me) just means obedience to God.

Of course, there is the “obedience of faith” or the “obedience that comes from faith” (Romans 1:5; Romans 16:26). Faith is not simply intellectual assent to propositional truth. It involves the will. When we place our faith in Christ, we are giving ourselves to Jesus because we trust him enough with our very souls.

To state things clearly, good works are necessary and without them we will not be justified BUT good works are not the basis of our justification. Faith alone justifies–but only the faith that leads to good works. I think Paul says it best:

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” (Galatians 5:6)

 

[JonNC]

It’s just not necessary nor theologically correct IMO to hang onto the faith alone doctrine.

Except that the use of faith alone speaks only to how we access justification. This is regularly referred to in scripture. Even James assumes faith. Even the CC speak of initial justification by faith.
Benedict says:

our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: " faith alone " is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).

To this I say, Amen.

 

[fhansen]

I have nothing against seeing faith as the foundation of justification and the beginning of salvation for man -that’s `Catholic teaching in fact. The problem is when faith is equated with or replaces justice. Justice or holiness or righteousness is best defined by love, which is why the Greatest Commandments are what they are. But in Protestant theology, generally understood, a person must have faith, alone, in order to be saved; faith, itself, is the focus of justice rather than the means to it because man is seen as being hopelessly sinful, for one thing, and incapable of possessing any righteousness of his own anyway. In Catholic theology a person must have love in order to be saved. And there are many Protestants who would disagree with the Catholic position, maintaining that love is a sort of side-benefit of faith at most, or should be at any rate.

And this also relates to the difference between imputed vs infused righteousness. In Catholic teaching there’s nothing to be particularly proud of for having Christ’s righteousness merely imputed to us. God wants more for us than to be “snow-covered dung heaps” and so along with forgiveness He makes us new creations, infusing real justice, namely more faith along with hope, and, most importantly, love. The following was told to me by an acquaintance recently: “I was at a bible study yesterday with a monk who repeatedly says that the only way to determine our salvation is by the love we show for others. And, which is the only gift we will be left with after death.” That love, primarily, is the justice God sows in our hearts initially at justification, even if only in nascent seedling form at that point. From there that justice must be maintained, nurtured, and grown, with His help and our cooperation, in order for salvation to be worked out.

The doctrine of Sola Fide just doesn’t innately include all of this as I see it, and it works alright only if it’s qualified. So yes, in his striving for ecumenism Pope Benedict is right: "faith alone " is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Still would want to flesh that out a great deal, but ok for his purpose at the time.

In any case I think it’s important to clearly define the theology of all this. If we could agree that love is essential for salvation then much clarity would be realized. A major problem is that with the disunity and division resulting from the Reformation this united understanding would be very difficult to achieve now-the doctrine of Sola Fide having spread more confusion than otherwise at the end of the day.

 

[Hodos]

The only place you’ll find the doctrine of Sola Fide (“faith alone”) in Scripture is in the version of the Bible where Luther purposely added (on his own authority) “alone” to Romans 3:28. He considered the Epistle to St. James to be an “epistle of straw” because it states plainly that “faith without works is dead, being alone.” I don’t see why Protestants get hung up on “works.” “Works” (to me) just means obedience to God.

Unless of course you read the entire chapter and realize that Luther had his understanding of what Paul wrote exactly right even if his translation was not word for word. But I digress…why read the entire book or even chapter (which sets up the contrast between justification by faith and justification by works and says that we are justified by faith apart from works no less than three times in about 20 lines).

Similarly, why read the entire 2 chapter of James when he sets up the entire premise that faith without works is dead in the context of demonstrating your faith to your neighbor so that your inward faith is expressed outwardly by your actions?

 

[ltwin]

The problem is when faith is equated with or replaces justice. Justice or holiness or righteousness is best defined by love , which is why the Greatest Commandments are what they are.

And we are able to obey the command to love by grace through faith.

But in Protestant theology, generally understood, a person must have faith, alone, in order to be saved; faith, itself, is the focus of justice rather than the means to it because man is seen as being hopelessly sinful, for one thing, and incapable of possessing any righteousness of his own anyway.

I would say the focus is not the faith but rather who we have faith in, namely Christ. The focus is on Christ, what he has done, what he has promised, and what he has commanded.

In Catholic theology a person must have love in order to be saved. And there are many Protestants who would disagree with the Catholic position, maintaining that love is a sort of side-benefit of faith at most, or should be at any rate.

Love is not a side-benefit of faith. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that faith which does not express itself in love is not justifying. I’d be curious if you could point me to Protestants who teach this? They don’t sound very knowledgeable of Scripture if they believe you can truly know a God who is Love without love:

“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God” (1 John 4:7).

I don’t claim to know of every variety of Protestant out there, but I’m pretty knowledgeable about the main currents. I’ve never heard any respected Protestant teach that the absence of love was the mark of a true Christian.

so along with forgiveness He makes us new creations, infusing real justice, namely more faith along with hope, and, most importantly, love.

And you think Protestants don’t also believe God makes us new creations or that we do not grow in grace and faith, hope and love? For the record, Protestants believe we are made new creations and that we are being made righteous.

Yes, there is a difference between Catholics and Protestants regarding infusion versus imputation. There is also a difference between how both traditions categorize things. Catholics would lump sanctification and regeneration all under justification. Protestants, however, separate these out (though regeneration and adoption tend to be discussed as occurring simultaneously with justification). Justification concerns our standing before God. Regeneration concerns being made a new creation, from spiritually dead to spiritually alive. Sanctification is the process of being made righteous.

 

[ltwin]

@fhansen, in the context of faith and love as this thread has been discussing, I like this explanation from a sermon by John Piper on the relationship between faith, love and the Holy Spirit in our lives:

The Spirit and faith relate this way: faith is the channel or the pipeline or the conduit or the aqueduct of the Spirit. Love is the fruit of the Spirit and the fruit of faith because faith is what receives and depends on the Spirit. . . The love of Christ is the deep, nutritional soil where we are planted; the Holy Spirit is the sap that pours that love into our lives; and faith is the root that we send down into the soil.

“The Link Between God’s Love for Us and Ours for Others”

 

[JonNC]

But in Protestant theology, generally understood, a person must have faith, alone, in order to be saved; faith, itself, is the focus of justice rather than the means to it because man is seen as being hopelessly sinful, for one thing, and incapable of possessing any righteousness of his own anyway.

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.

 

[Isearch]

For Protestants, does Justification have to be prior chronologically to Sanctification? Or is Justification prior only in order?

 

[ronb]

Works cannot be the basis of our justification because God demands perfection and none of us is perfect. We all sin, and one sin makes us guilty of the whole law (James 2:10).

That’s what confession is for. Even though we aren’t perfect we are to strive for perfection. “Justified by faith alone…” often comes down to “this is too hard, but it doesn’t matter, God understands.”

34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. … 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? … 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me. … 41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. … 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. 46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

Call it works or obedience, but our salvation depends upon it.

We’re probably not that far apart on this, but some of the early Reformers definitely allowed sin and “faith” to coexist. You’ve seen the Bible tracts, “only believe.” As St. James wrote, “the devils believe and tremble.”

 

[JonNC]

Call it works or obedience, but our salvation depends upon it.

Our salvation depends on grace, not our works. We can, of course, reject that grace by choosing to not follow His commands.

 

[ltwin]

For Protestants, does Justification have to be prior chronologically to Sanctification? Or is Justification prior only in order?

I believe the way it goes (not 100% sure off the top of my head) is that justification is simultaneous with initial sanctification, but then progressive sanctification continues as a process. So, justification occurs (alongside regeneration, adoption), at which time we begin the process of sanctification.

 

[ltwin]

We’re probably not that far apart on this, but some of the early Reformers definitely allowed sin and “faith” to coexist.

Well, sin and faith do coexist in the sense that even the most faithful Christian will fall short of perfection. However, we are covered by grace as we are made progressively more like Christ, so we do not automatically lose our union with Christ when we sin but we confess and we repent and we continue to rely on the Holy Spirit to continue his sanctifying work in us. Christ’s righteousness, which is ours by faith, is like a shield or covering under which we can battle against our sin and ultimately with God’s grace achieve the victory.

Prolonged disobedience, however, grieves the Holy Spirit and is an indication that our faith is no longer in Christ. It is in this condition where danger lies.

 

[MichaelP3]

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.

And what you responded to is exactly the reason I say that Catholics and Non-Catholics do not have the same understanding of faith. To say it is an intellectual assent is a slap in the face of faith. It is so much more than that and that is why Catholics miss a large portion of what Non-Catholics mean when they say faith.

Many many intellectuals came to the conclusion not to have faith in Christianity via their “intellectual assent”. Stephen Hawking comes to mind. Numerous writings can be found as to why he is not a Christian. Now for me his reasons are interesting but not that “understandable”. And I would like to meet the person on here who can even begin to fathom what he meant.

Point is, we are not as smart as we think we are and to claim “intellectual assent” is just a joke. Faith is not what we “know” or more correctly “think what we know” but what we believe to be true with all our hearts and literally would die for. Proof or no proof is irrelevant but what we believe to be true and willing to go the extra 1000 miles for!

 

[MichaelP3]

It seems to imply that intellectual assent alone is sufficient for salvation

To the OP then as my previous post it seems to be evident that the definition of faith is not shared before we even get to the rest of your question.

Faith includes a whole lot more than what you stated and maybe just maybe it includes so much it can actually be “sola” then. Just a thought.

 

[ronb]

Well, sin and faith do coexist in the sense that even the most faithful Christian will fall short of perfection. However, we are covered by grace as we are made progressively more like Christ, so we do not automatically lose our union with Christ …

Obviously, being Catholic, I disagree. Any mortal sin (a grievous sin done in full knowledge that it opposes God’s will) causes immediate spiritual death. That’s why penance is called a sacrament of the dead (along with baptism) because they give (or restore) spiritual life. An act of perfect contradiction can restore spiritual life without immediate confession, but confession is a promise you make in the act of contrition.

I think St. John also disagrees with you here. From his 1st Epistle: 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he also is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

And: 3 And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But he that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected; and by this we know that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him, ought himself also to walk, even as he walked.

And: We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is. 3 And every one that hath this hope in him, sanctifieth himself, as he also is holy. 4 Whosoever committeth sin committeth also iniquity; and sin is iniquity. 5 And you know that he appeared to take away our sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not; and whosoever sinneth, hath not seen him, nor known him. 7 Little children, let no man deceive you. He that doth justice is just, even as he is just. 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

I realize there is a difference between mortal and venial sin, the first is “mortal” because it spiritually kills you, the second weakens you spiritually and (if left unchecked) often leads to mortal sin.

May God be with you.

 

[ltwin]

I think St. John also disagrees with you here. From his 1st Epistle: 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he also is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

I don’t disagree with John here. Christians will keep God’s commandments and will not keep on sinning, but when they do sin they are not automatically fallen from a state of grace. If we were already perfect, we’d have no need of grace.

Paul says in Hebrews 10:26-27 “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.” So, yes, if we continue in sin, then we cannot expect forgiveness for there needs to be true repentance.

 

[Dougbro1]

Our salvation depends on grace, not our works. We can, of course, reject that grace by choosing to not follow His commands.

I think that if the grace can be rejected by not following His commandments, our salvation, in a sense, still depends on works. Ultimately, though, salvation still does come from the grace of the love of Christ. So in a sense,
Faith+works(following His commands) → Grace → Salvation

What do you think of this? (This question is also for all who are reading this, as well as JonNC)

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Our salvation depends on grace, not our works. We can, of course, reject that grace by choosing to not follow His commands.

I think that if the grace can be rejected by not following His commandments, our salvation, in a sense, still depends on works. Ultimately, though, salvation still does come from the grace of the love of Christ. So in a sense,
Faith+works(following His commands) → Grace → Salvation

What do you think of this? (This question is also for all who are reading this, as well as JonNC)

Grace —> faith in Christ —-> salvation.

I have for a while felt our views on soteriology are not beyond reconciliation.
So, a question: can we choose to do good works without the presence, guidance and prompting of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Dougbro1]

The answer is yes, as even non-believers can do good works, but grace is necessary for a man’s good works to be salutary–that is to say, meritorious for heaven. The Council of Trent taught this in its canons on justification:

Canon 1: If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema.
Canon 2: If anyone shall say that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man may more easily be able to live justly and merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he were able to do both, though with difficulty and hardship: let him be anathema.
Canon 3: If anyone shall say that without the anticipatory inspiration of the Holy Spirit and without his assistance man can believe, hope, and love or be repentant, as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be conferred upon him: let him be anathema.

You seem to be well-versed in theology, so I know I don’t have to explain to you what “anathema” means.
In the same council,

None of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. ‘For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise,’ as the Apostle says, ‘grace is no more grace’” (DJ 8, quoting Rom. 11:6).

Works (and by works, I mean keeping Christ’s commandments) do not guarantee, but play a huge part in our salvation.
The same applies to faith.