Why say "Sola Fide"?

[ltwin]

"i never get a straight answer about this issue. Even from the same person i’ll hear these two assertions:

1. That we don’t need to keep the commandments because we’ve been saved from them, and,
2. we need to keep the commandments now that we call ourselves Christian because we’ve “been given” the ability to choose between sin and righteousness.

i hear both ping-ponging back and forth every time i listen to Bible teachers, and i’m not talking about cultists or outright works-salvationists."

There are Christians who wrongly think that the Commandments are not binding on us because they are part of the “law” and we are “under grace.” But they are misguided. Jesus himself puts following the Commandments at the center of New Testament ethics and the New Testament writers like Paul follow his lead. Romans 13:8-10:

“Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

Jesus transformed the Commandments, but he did not abolish them, Matthew 5:17-20:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but rto fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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).”

Yet there is another part to it, the justification of baptism (with faith) can be lost, per Catholic teaching, through mortal sin, which destroye charity. Justification as understood by some of the Reformation includes:

• absolute certainty (certitudo),
• equality in all (oequalitas),
• impossibility of loosing it (inamissibilitas).

This is contrary to Catholic faith.

 

[ltwin]

And either way, does that faith necessarily guarantee that we will live obediently, with the justice or righteousness that God expects of us, so long as we remain faithful?

This seems to be touching on the question of irresistible grace. Protestants have different views on that. Calvinists would say that a person is regenerated (made spiritually alive) and then is able to have faith. So, the person will have faith and remain faithful because God chose him.

Arminians allow for more cooperation between God and the one being converted.

And if faith does guarantee this righteousness, what would the reason or “mechanism” be for that? Would a change in us be necessary at justification consisting of real righteousness infused, and the Trinity dwelling within, or would a strictly imputed righteousness suffice, with ourselves unchanged, still sinners in truth while forgiven?

There is a real change. As I’ve said before, we are not just justified when we place our faith in Christ. We are also regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit, united mystically to Christ. Sanctification begins and we begin to imitate Christ, becoming more like him as we grow in grace. 2 Corinthians 3:18, “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.”

 

[fhansen]

This seems to be touching on the question of irresistible grace. Protestants have different views on that. Calvinists would say that a person is regenerated (made spiritually alive) and then is able to have faith. So, the person will have faith and remain faithful because God chose him.

Arminians allow for more cooperation between God and the one being converted.

Yes, resistible vs irresistible grace-the role of man’s will- is involved in this question.
But I’m really questioning the role of faith-and whether or not faith necessarily causes righteousness (real as opposed to imputed or forensically declared) in man or does faith suffice in itself as the righteousness God requires. Or is anything else necessary in order for man to possess the righteousness God requires?

There is a real change. As I’ve said before, we are not just justified when we place our faith in Christ. We are also regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit, united mystically to Christ. Sanctification begins and we begin to imitate Christ, becoming more like him as we grow in grace. 2 Corinthians 3:18, “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.”

And this is the theology I’d be most opposed to-and that opposes the gospel as well, as I see it.

 

[JonNC]

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).”

In other parts, he is more specific. I think he uses the term “good Protestants”.

 

[JonNC]

Yet there is another part to it, the justification of baptism (with faith) can be lost, per Catholic teaching, through mortal sin, which destroye charity. Justification as understood by some of the Reformation includes:

• absolute certainty ( certitudo ),
• equality in all ( oequalitas ),
• impossibility of loosing it ( inamissibilitas ).

This is contrary to Catholic faith.

On the face of it,
Absolute certainty-depends on what you mean.
Equality in all - I’m honestly not sure of the reference
Impossibility of loosing it - rejected from the Lutheran perspective.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, I saw that but wasn’t quite sure how to take it. I thought all Protestants were bad, right? Kidding of course. I used to be “bad” too.

 

[dopeyMS]

And the Protestant counter-part still in force today -

‘unless you give 10 percent of your income to our church then the blessings of heaven will not be given to you…so faithfully give us your hundreds of dollars every week so we can buy a G6 for our mega-church pastor and build huge cathedrals that are just cheap imitations of the Catholic and Orthodox ones’

The ten percent tithe has pillaged more gullible Protestants than all the Indulgences in all of the middle ages combined. Like I haven’t heard that broken record before.

Why is this so offensive and the medieval Indulgences go on an endless play loop?

 

[ltwin]

And this is the theology I’d be most opposed to-and that opposes the gospel as well, as I see it.

What do you specifically oppose about it?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Not sure why somebody flagged that. Weird

Anyway, many Protestants will tell you that the prosperity gospel is false and they do not subscribe to it.

I’ve seen what you are referring to at a Protestant megaChurch. Downright sickening how they suck away at your bank account like shameless leeches and claim if you don’t give 10%, you are “robbing God” …cherry picking the OT.

 

[ltwin]

But I’m really questioning the role of faith-and whether or not faith necessarily causes righteousness (real as opposed to imputed or forensically declared) in man or does faith suffice in itself as the righteousness God requires. Or is anything else necessary in order for man to possess the righteousness God requires?

Faith is the instrument by which we are justified, adopted, united to Christ, and sanctified. In justification, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. In sanctification, his righteousness is imparted to us as we “make every effort to supplement our faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love” (2 Peter 1:5-7).

In other words by grace through faith, we are given a new righteous standing before God and a new nature in which we–through the Spirit’s empowerment–are able to live righteously.

 

[ltwin]

Why is this so offensive and the medieval Indulgences go on an endless play loop?

Both are offensive to me, and you will find Protestants just as disgusted with the prosperity gospel as they are with any Catholic abuses.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Yet there is another part to it, the justification of baptism (with faith) can be lost, per Catholic teaching, through mortal sin, which destroye charity. Justification as understood by some of the Reformation includes:

• absolute certainty ( certitudo ),
• equality in all ( oequalitas ),
• impossibility of loosing it ( inamissibilitas ).

This is contrary to Catholic faith.

On the face of it,
Absolute certainty-depends on what you mean.
Equality in all - I’m honestly not sure of the reference
Impossibility of loosing it - rejected from the Lutheran perspective.

Equality in all of justification means that each has the same degree of righteousness and sanctity. Catholic teaching is that this varies (different merit) – good works done in faith, hope and love for God, after initial justification of Baptism, can merit further increases in grace, justification, and sanctification.

Catholic teaching is that a person could only have absolute certainty of salvation if it were divinely revealed.

From what has been said it is obvious that justification as understood by Protestants, presents the following qualities: its absolute certainty (certitudo), its equality in all (aequalitas), and finally the impossibility of ever losing it (inamissibilitas). For if it be essential to fiduciary faith that it infallibly assures the sinner of his own justification, it cannot mean anything but a firm conviction of the actual possession of grace. If, moreover, the sinner be justified, not by an interior righteousness capable of increase or decrease, but through God’s sanctity eternally the same, it is evident that all the just from the common mortal to the Apostles and the Blessed Virgin Mary possess one and the same degree of righteousness and sanctity. Finally if, as Luther maintains, only the loss of faith (according to Calvin, not even that) can deprive us of justification, it follows that justification once obtained can never be lost.

Pohle, J. (1910). Justification. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

 

[JonNC]

Equality in all of justification means that each has the same degree of righteousness and sanctity.

I would say no. We grow in grace.

Catholic teaching is that a person could only have absolute certainty of salvation if it were divinely revealed.

There is certainty that salvation comes by grace through faith in Christ. There is certainty in Christ’s words in John 3:16.

 

[Vico]

…

Q. I would say no. We grow in grace.
A. St. Augustine: “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due… Our merits are God’s gifts.” (Catechism 2009)

Q. There is certainty that salvation comes by grace through faith in Christ. There is certainty in Christ’s words in John 3:16.
A. Yes. Yet, an individual may not know without divine revelation, with absolute certainty of their own particular or another’s attainment of heaven.

 

[JonNC]

A. St. Augustine: “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due… Our merits are God’s gifts.” (Catechism 2009)

I like St. Augustine’s use of the term “given”. It is a gift, unmerited by us, but merited by Christ.
That said, what he says does not contradict that we grow in grace (sanctification).

 

[Vico]

Vico:

A. St. Augustine: “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due… Our merits are God’s gifts.” (Catechism 2009)

I like St. Augustine’s use of the term “given”. It is a gift, unmerited by us, but merited by Christ.
That said, what he says does not contradict that we grow in grace (sanctification).

As stated at the Council of Orange, 529 A.D., Augustine v. Pelagius:

Canon 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/ORANGE.HTM

 

[fhansen]

What do you specifically oppose about it?

The gospel is gutted of its meaning when the will of man is removed from the equation. Strict determinism has never been part of the Christian faith since the beginning-or from Eden on for that matter. The following is part one of my posts from another forum, with a poster explaining and defending the Calvinist position and with me responding. This will require two posts here. He begins:

"This is a misperception you have though. The will is not “removed”; it’s changed. It’s “made alive” along with the person’s spirit / soul / what ever the process is that God uses to quicken someone. Although it is true that there is a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering; that’s something humanity has “self inflicted upon self.”

But if the will is changed such that it cannot do anything but will as God determines, then you’re making a distinction without a difference. In Catholic theology we cannot will rightly without God moving us to do so and yet we can still resist that movement, we can say “no”, whether at the beginning or at any step later on. We can’t possibly be saved without Him and yet we can still refuse to be saved. This preserves and explains the meaning of so many Scriptural passages from Genesis through Revelation, commands and warnings and admonitions and encouragements to believers to obey, to not fall away, to remain/abide in him, to choose life over death, to refrain from sin, to not be branches cut off, to invest ones talents, to keep oil in ones lamp, to strive, to persevere, etc, etc.

“Entities retain the ability to act independently of other’s wills or desires; but that ability is not theologically “free will”. A will that is truly free, is free from a fallen nature as well as the individual’s own sin. And this side of eternity, no human independent volition fits that definition.”

I’ll agree that freedom is a somewhat relative term for man and yet, even in his fallen state, which persists in him even after justification to the extent that he still struggles with and against sin/concupiscence, he’s a morally accountable being, he can choose between right and wrong, he’s not some dumb amoral beast and this is why we hold each other accountable for injustices, this is why we can all possess and express moral outrage or righteous indignation at atrocities committed in this world. He also possesses no “sin nature”. His “falleness” consists chiefly in spiritual separation from God, ‘Apart from Whom man can do nothing’, a state also known as the “death of the soul”. So God appeals to man, to draw his will into alignment, to draw man’s “yes” without strictly determining this for him, to draw man to Himself- from Eden until now- for our own good . And that’s why human history only makes sense if the will of man plays a role, no matter how small.

continued:

 

[fhansen]

Because if it’s a matter of the will being determined for us then there was simply no reason to boot man out of Eden, to not prevent Adam from sinning to begin with or just forgive him right away, to not stock heaven with the predestined elect right then, and hell with the reprobate- if man in no way has to learn of the foolishness of Adam’s act and reverse that decision within himself. Instead man was placed into a world where he could learn, collectively and personally, of the foolishness and destructiveness of the loss of his vital relationship with God, of the fruits of disobeying Him, of denying His authority, His godhood. Fallen man is a prodigal who experiences-who knows -both good and evil in this life, and can therefore come to choose between the two, even as grace is needed to help him. He can experience the evil and sin that results when man’s will reigns, when the Master’s gone away for all practical purposes. And he can then change his mind as revelation and grace are thrown into the mix. This explains God’s patiently working with and through a people down through the centuries-and finally delivering His ultimate grace and revelation in the form of Christ when the time was ripe. So that the full light is now present in the world, so that we may choose - as we’re ready, even if only reluctantly and faltering at first, and then be finally judged on what we did with what we’ve been given in terms of time and experience and knowledge and grace.

 

[fhansen]

I like St. Augustine’s use of the term “given”. It is a gift, unmerited by us, but merited by Christ.
That said, what he says does not contradict that we grow in grace (sanctification).

After being justified we work out our salvation with God, as He prompts and enables us by grace to perform acts He’s prepared for us-acts that contribute to meriting eternal life. We can still refuse, however; we can refuse to work out our salvation, having no works to merit it with.