Why say "Sola Fide"?

[fhansen]

I don’t know that righteousness necessarily comes so automatically when we believe-or necessarily remains consistent-in any absolute sense. We’re given the power to overcome and yet we still struggle with sin, we can still fall away, we may not persevere to the end; we’re being tested and, hopefully, refined. And as far as the Ten Commandments are concerned, they can still stand as a guide for what we should do, in case we aren’t so automatically sure, and also continue to serve as a teacher by revealing sin to those who try to fulfill the law on their own, without grace, apart from God. Either way, yes, we can all fall into a mechanical, legalistic practice of our faith, even where that faith is outlined correctly in professions, creeds, catechisms, etc. And I believe the Reformers were right in wanting our faith to connect us directly to God, even if the RCC’s actual teachings, properly understood, are aimed at establishing and maintaining that same relationship.

It’s sort of interesting to me, tho, that the only commandments that cannot be fulfilled legalistically are the Greatest Commandments. IOW, we can refrain from murder but still have murder in our hearts, we can refrain from adultery but still lust. But to the extent that we really do fulfill the Greatest Commandments…we love-there’s no wiggle room in that. And, of course, love fulfills the others.

But back to the others, to the Ten. The ancient churches, east and west, have always maintained that we’re still bound to uphold the Decalogue and the Roman Catholic Church teaches that they’re not impossible for us to fulfill because God would never command man to do something that it was impossible for him to do. So while the Old Covenant was made obsolete by the New, the strictures of the Old were never revoked. Now we have a new and better covenant that finally provides us with the only real means to obey, which I believe you’d agree with, the “means” being God, Himself, Whom man was never meant to stray away from.

 

[JonNC]

M

I was going to suggest a pet animal makes a better friend than a pet peeve.

I have a wonderful older dog.
Thanks for the suggestion, but as @Cathoholic seems to indicate, he holds to the same”pet peeve”, that being a level of frustration when others misrepresent his church’s teachings, too.

 

[Darryl_B]

May you have many great more times ahead with your dog.

From my perspective there is a problem in that there is only two words to make the slogan. Of those two words 50 percent of them are found in the Bible, and the other 50 belong to that white space on the page immediately following the full stop. When the two words do actually occur together it is proceeded by the negation “not”.

After that it is open to anyone’s understanding because what it means was attempted to be defined later, but it had to be compartmentalised first, then it travelled through many other schools of thought each picking up their own flavours with no one having a monopoly on it.

So for me the term “sola fide” is just a man made invention which I personally relegate to the book of disingenios inventions.

It is possible to express faith without having to use slogans, and probably better for them to.

 

[JonNC]

It seems your argument is the slogan. Okay. But when you say this:

So for me the term “sola fide” is just a man made invention which I personally relegate to the book of disingenios inventions.

I believe you might want to review the 8th commandment. You have no way of knowing if those who use the slogan are being disingenuous. Your charge is slanderous and uncharitable. It also does not reflect what i hear from the theologians and leaders of your communion. Certainly Pope Benedict doesn’t speak in this way, but I guess you think you know better than these.

It is possible to express faith without having to use slogans, and probably better for them to.

No problem. I hear Catholics here use the slogan “faith and works”. I disagree with the implied meaning, but I certainly do not think Catholics are disingenuous in using it.

Let’s then settle on something. How about what the JDDJ says:

15.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.[11]
(Highlight is mine. )

If not, maybe Galatians 5:6.

Let me know.

 

[Darryl_B]

I don’t consider you to be the reincarnation of Martin Luther.

 

[dopeyMS]

‘Sola Fide’ is a man made invention and if there really were a biblical ‘Sola’ it would be ‘Sola Caritas’ because Love is the highest not Faith. But good ole’ Martin hated the Catholic church so much and why did he hate them? Because Queen Mother Charity had no place in his stony heart.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t consider you to be the reincarnation of Martin Luther.

I have know idea what that has to do with the conversation.
What do you think of my two suggestions? The JDDJ or Galatians 5:6?

 

[JonNC]

‘Sola Fide’ is a man made invention and if there really were a biblical ‘Sola’ it would be ‘Sola Caritas’ because Love is the highest not Faith. But good ole’ Martin hated the Catholic church so much and why did he hate them? Because Queen Mother Charity had no place in his stony heart.

[Mary is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522).

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

But you knew all of these since you claim to be a former Lutheran.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I hate to defend Luther but feel I must as this is a tad unfair.

Luther witnessed injustice taking place…and it ticked him off. Injustice that the Catholic Church has since acknowledged.

You can’t buy/sell the grace of God, but unfortunately some within our Church where attempting to do just that – and in Luther’s presence. I would have also been upset, had I witnessed what he witnessed.

So, stoney heart? Meh, not sure how you drew that conclusion.

 

[dopeyMS]

It takes money to defend Christiandom, just look at Spain who spent a 1000 years fighting the Muslims. If it were up to Luther we would all be praying in the mosque today. Can we all grow up and get past the idea that the Church does in fact run on money and it takes lots of money to defend the faith.

 

[dopeyMS]

But you knew all of these since you claim to be a former Lutheran.

Mary is full of grace and we should venerate her. Mary is the highest of all created beings and she bore the Son of God. I think that merits some veneration.

 

[JonNC]

dopeyMS:

But you knew all of these since you claim to be a former Lutheran.

Mary is full of grace and we should venerate her. Mary is the highest of all created beings and she bore the Son of God. I think that merits some veneration.

So, you agree with Luther about the Blessed Virgin Mary.

But I may have misunderstood your post. Were you accusing Luther of not participating in charity?
If so, you are wrong. Again.

 

[fhansen]

You won’t hear that from me. It is contrary to Christ’s commands.

Again, not from me. We’ve been given grace, and the free will to reject it. Without grace, we cannot choose righteousness.

It depends on what you mean by guarantee. We continue to have free will to reject grace, even after baptism, and justification.

And by these I assume you’re stating Luther’s position. I do understand better the similarities between our positions, and appreciate them, although I’m not always sure of of Luther’s consistency-and I admit I haven’t studied him much. Indulge me a bit and tell me your opinion on his famous letter to Melanchthon. Was it hyperbole? Or an earlier stage of his thinking? Anyway, both sides rightfully wish to be acknowledged where their theologies are sound but the more we agree with Luther the more I wonder why the thoughts of some fellow should’ve ever served to help divide the Church to begin with, let alone start a whole new denomination.

There is this misunderstanding that when it is said that righteousness is imputed that this means there is no change in us.

Ok, there are certainly different views on this as well. Luther’s quote that you cited works alright as long as one defines faith the way he has there. But personally I agree with the Church that love is the motivating factor behind the works mentioned and that faith can exist without love even though it should blossom into it. Love, itself, is a grace we can resist, while faith is the first step in obtaining that gift. And love acts, or works, by its nature for the good of others. In the end I think we all want theologies that most clearly spell out the truth regarding God’s nature and will for man. And to me the doctrine of sola fide can make it less clear as to whether or not man is obligated to righteousness apart from the act of believing.

 

[fhansen]

Here was my quite terse response to the OP I cited from that different forum entitled, “Are we Saved from the Law or are we expected to keep it?” Maybe you can compare my understanding of the faith with yours:

"We’re saved from being “under the Law”, which means to attempt obedience by my own efforts. But the obligation to be righteous, to be who we were created to be, has never gone away for man. Faith doesn’t remove that obligation, or replace or stand in for righteousness, rather it provides the authentic means to attain it, with God, ‘apart from whom we can do nothing’ (John 15:5) So the New Covenant prophecy of Jer 31:33 tells 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."

Now under grace, with man in communion with God, rather than under the Law, man is empowered to live by the Spirit as long as he remains in Him and He in us. This vital relationship, that man was made for, can always be shattered again. Faith, in response to grace, establishes this partnership."

 

[Vico]

…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…

James Akin wrote:

A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata.
Justification by Faith Alone – Jimmy Akin

The theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity, are gifts of the Holy Spirit. These can be lost or weakened through sins:
Catechism 2088-9 (Faith): Voluntary doubt … incredulity … Heresy … apostacy … schism.
Catechism 2091 (Hope): despair and presumption.
Catechism 2094 (Charity): indifference … ingratitude … lukewarmness … acedia … hatred of God.
Catechism 2095 The theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity inform and give life to the moral virtues. Thus charity leads us to render to God what we as creatures owe him in all justice. The virtue of religion disposes us to have this attitude.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Your loved one(____insert name) is suffering in purgatory right now. But a little cash can spring their poor soul right out of there.

Oh, you don’t have any money? No soup for you.

What kind of message does that send? We are to trust God for operating cost, not stoop to such lows as to attempt sell God’s grace.

Luther was justified in his anger on that topic. Wrong doctrinally, but justified in his anger.

Luther or A Luther of sorts was bound to jump ship and start his own thing. But I wish Tetzel and others were not pulling this simony because it has forever tainted the opinion of purgatory in the hearts of non Catholic Christians.

 

[JonNC]

Here was my quite terse response to the OP I cited from that different forum entitled, “Are we Saved from the Law or are we expected to keep it?” Maybe you can compare my understanding of the faith with yours:

"We’re saved from being “under the Law”, which means to attempt obedience by my own efforts. But the obligation to be righteous, to be who we were created to be, has never gone away for man. Faith doesn’t remove that obligation, or replace or stand in for righteousness, rather it provides the authentic means to attain it, with God, ‘apart from whom we can do nothing’ (John 15:5) So the New Covenant prophecy of Jer 31:33 tells 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."

Now under grace, with man in communion with God, rather than under the Law, man is empowered to live by the Spirit as long as he remains in Him and He in us. This vital relationship, that man was made for, can always be shattered again. Faith, in response to grace, establishes this partnership."

I generally would agree

 

[JonNC]

James Akin wrote:

A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata .
https://jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone

Thank you for posting this. From the same article:

We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:
Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity
The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant’s idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan “salvation by faith alone” becomes the Catholic slogan “salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone).”

 

[fhansen]

The OP actually did too, as it turned out.

 

[fhansen]

We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:
Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity
The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant’s idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan “salvation by faith alone” becomes the Catholic slogan “salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone).”

Sounds good, except that he’s also made a general statement about Protestantism here, that doesn’t necessarily hold so true across the board…