Rejecting Sola Fide

[hedrick]

Actually, Paul’s argument is even more radical than saying that the Law was just temporariy restraining sin. He says that sin itself was part of the temporary arrangement. This is a difficulty for commentators. But the most straightforward understanding is that the idea of sin is in fact temporary. That is, being in Christ doesn’t just keep us from sinning, faith removes the whole system of controlling behavior by classifying things as sins and then punishing them. Without the law there is no sin, as Paul says explicitly, because our behavior is no longer controlled that way.

This does not, of course, mean that there’s no difference between right and wrong. But the question we should ask is no longer, is this a sin, i.e. a violation of the no longer existent law, but is it how Christ wants us to act. Does that make a difference? I think so. Focusing on rules tends to produce a different result than focusing on Christ’s example.

(No, I am not suggesting situation ethics. I think that approach failed.)

 

[Erose]

Paul said the law could not save because of the weakness of the flesh. Recognizing that, God sent Christ. It is His job to save. Our job is to confess, and He is faithful to forgive, and cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness. But being cleansed from ALL unrighteousness is not the goal, in fact may make us proud. To keep you from being proud He may allow Satan to continue to torment you, and Christ's power is made perfect in weakness.

I didn't say that, Scripture did.

Jesus told us to be perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect. We are called to strive for spiritual perfection. Maybe we won't achieve it fully in this life, but we are called to seek it. Christ gives us all the necessary grace to overcome sin and be perfect in righteousness.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Jesus told us to be perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect. We are called to strive for spiritual perfection. Maybe we won't achieve it fully in this life, but we are called to seek it. Christ gives us all the necessary grace to overcome sin and be perfect in righteousness.

Paul wanted to be perfect. He followed the Way, he confessed his sin, expecting to be cleansed of all unrighteousness, because if we are cleansed of all unrighteousness, we can be perfected for noble use, be blessings to the world. But God said His grace, His approval, through faith, loyalty, being in Christ was sufficient to be saved, be blessings to the world.

I didn't say these things, Scripture did.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I just propose that apart from Martin Luther, it is possible that no man in Christian history had more confidence in his salvation by faith plus nothing. He made himself a marked man, stood opposed to Catholicism and never recanted his doctrines. No matter how much it cost him. His confidence in his core doctrines was bold and consistent. That being said, if he had all faith and if "true saving faith" is marked by goodness and works, how do we explain Martin Luther's apparently unrepentant bad temper, pride, mocking hatred of Jews and the Pope, ill-treatment of theological rivals, his personal rejection of portions of Scripture, tolerance towards persecution of non-Lutherans, and vanity? Surely if any man in human history had confidence in faith alone to save him it is Martin Luther. If his hypothesis was accurate and if as some argue, saving faith produces good works, how do we account for Martin Luther's lack of the abundance of fruits one might expect?

 

[anna ~ grace]

And if Martin Luther's faith was not "true", neither should his theology be accepted. Which is profoundly ironic. If his attitudes and behavior showed charity, humility, love of enemies, non-resistance to men's evil, meekness, forgiveness, and a deep love of purity, his doctrines might be considered valid. But if his character and thoughts display opposing qualities, his thesis comes into question, IMO.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I hope that Luther is in Paradise and don't presume to judge him. But certain aspects of his tempermant, attitudes, personality, fruits, and thoughts need to be examined next to Sola Fide and the arguments used to defend it. If Luther had works through faith acceptable to Christ than I believe that Christ accepts him, bad theology aside. But if we examine his works and find them undeniably opposed to what the NT commands and proclaims righteous, his thesis deserves the more scrutiny.

 

[Erose]

Paul wanted to be perfect. He followed the Way, he confessed his sin, expecting to be cleansed of all unrighteousness, because if we are cleansed of all unrighteousness, we can be perfected for noble use, be blessings to the world. But God said His grace, His approval, through faith, loyalty, being in Christ was sufficient to be saved, be blessings to the world.

I didn't say these things, Scripture did.

Scripture also says that we are to take the grace God has given us, and use it. Use it to become a better image of His Son. If you are not striving to be like Him, then you are striving for heaven.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Scripture also says that we are to take the grace God has given us, and use it. Use it to become a better image of His Son. If you are not striving to be like Him, then you are striving for heaven.

Faith and grace should be translated in the context of the Patron client relationship that was the common structure in Paul's time, namely to mean loyalty and favor.

Luther understood them to mean belief and spiritual gift.

http://theogeek.blogspot.in/2006/03/patron-client-system-and-hebrews-111.html?m=1

Quote
A great rule to keep in mind is this: Faithfulness is targeted at people, belief is targeted at ideas. You can be committed to a person, or committed to an idea. But talking about faithfulness to an idea, or belief in a person is nonsense.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I just propose that apart from Martin Luther, it is possible that no man in Christian history had more confidence in his salvation by faith plus nothing. He made himself a marked man, stood opposed to Catholicism and never recanted his doctrines. No matter how much it cost him. His confidence in his core doctrines was bold and consistent. That being said, if he had all faith and if "true saving faith" is marked by goodness and works, how do we explain Martin Luther's apparently unrepentant bad temper, pride, mocking hatred of Jews and the Pope, ill-treatment of theological rivals, his personal rejection of portions of Scripture, tolerance towards persecution of non-Lutherans, and vanity? Surely if any man in human history had confidence in faith alone to save him it is Martin Luther. If his hypothesis was accurate and if as some argue, saving faith produces good works, how do we account for Martin Luther's lack of the abundance of fruits one might expect?

Loyalty isn't confirmed by good works per se, but by being of one mind, agreeing in thinking with one's Master. Abraham's loyalty was confirmed by his readiness to be in sync with God, by committing a terrible act, human sacrifice!

 

[anna ~ grace]

For Martin Luther to have agreed with his Master, however, he would have had to obey the commandments of Christ and bore fruits of meekness, love, humility, forgiveness, denial of self, and charity. I don't see those fruits very clearly in the writings and apparent personality of Martin Luther. And if one tries to argue that Luther was a "product of his times", that's nonsense, Sir. Every human being born into this world of sin are products of their times. You or I would not call someone a modern day Saint who abused alcohol, watched inappropriate contentography, championed free abortions, stole from his employer, cursed his enemies, or slept around simply because these sins are common today and give skeptics the answer that this Saint is a " product of his times".

Loyalty isn't confirmed by good works per se, but by being of one mind, agreeing in thinking with one's Master. Abraham's loyalty was confirmed by his readiness to be in sync with God, by committing a terrible act, human sacrifice!

 

[Wordkeeper]

For Martin Luther to have agreed with his Master, however, he would have had to obey the commandments of Christ and bore fruits of meekness, love, humility, forgiveness, denial of self, and charity. I don't see those fruits very clearly in the writings and apparent personality of Martin Luther. And if one tries to argue that Luther was a "product of his times", that's nonsense, Sir. Every human being born into this world of sin are products of their times. You or I would not call someone a modern day Saint who abused alcohol, watched inappropriate contentography, championed free abortions, stole from his employer, cursed his enemies, or slept around simply because these sins are common today and give skeptics the answer that this Saint is a " product of his times".

Christ, John the Baptist, and all the servants of God came to collect rent from the Old Covenant believers: humility, confession of inadequacy, like the publican in the Temple. By commanding law keeping. In return for justification.

New Covenant believers who wanted to be perfect, were asked to follow God, to receive sanctification: empowerment to be blessings to the world. Through switching loyalty, from family to God, through doing unrighteous, irresponsible acts like, abandoning their homes and their fathers...

 

[anna ~ grace]

Sir, I'm not talking about that. I'm asking where Luther's Christ-like and good works were, if good works naturally follow faith. If faith is enough to save us, apart from works, the Words and commandments of Christ and of the whole NT are meaningless. Faith that justifies apart from works is simply incongruent with Scripture.

Christ, John the Baptist, and all the servants of God came to collect rent from the Old Covenant believers: humility, confession of inadequacy, like the publican in the Temple. By commanding law keeping. In return for justification.

New Covenant believers who wanted to be perfect, were asked to follow God, to receive sanctification: empowerment to be blessings to the world. Through switching loyalty, from family to God, through doing unrighteous, irresponsible acts like, abandoning their homes and their fathers...

 

[anna ~ grace]

Maybe this is why Protestantism has split up so badly in only a few centuries. Whereas the Catholics and Orthodox have stayed far more unified. Not saying that every Protestant is outside of grace or that every Catholic / Orthodox is going to Paradise. Every soul has a choice. But God does not seem to have blessed the churches that confess Sola Fide with cohesion.

 

[Rhamiel]

Maybe this is why Protestantism has split up so badly in only a few centuries. Whereas the Catholics and Orthodox have stayed far more unified. Not saying that every Protestant is outside of grace or that every Catholic / Orthodox is going to Paradise. Every soul has a choice. But God does not seem to have blessed the churches that confess Sola Fide with cohesion.

every split and schism harms the Body of Christ which is the Church

God has a special role for all of us, and when we participate in schism we are not living in the way that God intended us to

you say that Sola Fide churches have not been blessed with cohesion, that is true, but the Catholic Church was also harmed by them leaving

I think that the Catholic theology on free will and grace and salvation is correct, but after Lutheranism and Calvinism broke off, you see a lot of Catholic laity (and even some clergy) put too much emphasis on mankinds free will rather then on the Grace of God

we can also look at the split between the Orthodox and the Catholics
both sides have suffered
after the split the Catholic Church only had one Patriarch, that being the Pope, and we could see that the Papacy got an over inflated role in some ways, with a lot of worldly concerns and corruptions
on the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox have seemed kind of overly concerned with culture, with Russian and Greek social norms being overly internalized into the religion, they have not really moved past the Slavic Cultures, they are growing, but if you look at a demographics map, they are mostly just in the Slavic countries and in Western countries are mostly (not solely) spread by immigration instead of evangelization

so these splits have hurt all of us
Eastern Orthodox have lost some vitality
Roman Catholicism has lost some spirituality
Protestantism has lost some cohesion

all of them have their strengths as well
Eastern Orthodoxy has a beautiful and child-like trust in God (child-like in a good way)
Roman Catholicism has unity along with diversity and well thought out theology
Protestants have such strong zeal

 

[Wordkeeper]

Sir, I'm not talking about that. I'm asking where Luther's Christ-like and good works were, if good works naturally follow faith. If faith is enough to save us, apart from works, the Words and commandments of Christ and of the whole NT are meaningless. Faith that justifies apart from works is simply incongruent with Scripture.

Faith is not belief, faith is loyalty. Abraham was justified by being loyal to God, by being willing to obey Him, by trying to sacrifice his son. Rahab was justified by changing her loyalty from being loyal to her country to being loyal to God, by betraying her country:

James 2:
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?22You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. 24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Maybe this is why Protestantism has split up so badly in only a few centuries. Whereas the Catholics and Orthodox have stayed far more unified. Not saying that every Protestant is outside of grace or that every Catholic / Orthodox is going to Paradise. Every soul has a choice. But God does not seem to have blessed the churches that confess Sola Fide with cohesion.

The blessing of God is not cohesion, but fruit. The charismatic churches are the fastest growing churches. Even the RCC recognise this, following their seeking of charismatic gifts and their style of worship.

They grow because the say good things about God, not moan and complain. Jew means one who gives praise to God. Jesus said, "Do not stop the man from delivering people who are demon possessed, because whoever drives out demons in my name can not later on say bad things about me."

 

[Albion]

Surely if any man in human history had confidence in faith alone to save him it is Martin Luther. If his hypothesis was accurate and if as some argue, saving faith produces good works, how do we account for Martin Luther's lack of the abundance of fruits one might expect?

That answer may lie with the recognition of several important points. For one, none of us is sinless. We are all sinners, no matter how many fruits we also produce. We are children of a fallen race, even though God has provided a way for us to be saved despite our shortcomings.

For another, Luther was a wonderfully Christian man in many respects not mentioned in your post. So in the end, he was both an example of Christlike living and an example of human frailty...in other words, just like everyone of the rest of those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ.

 

[Albion]

Maybe this is why Protestantism has split up so badly in only a few centuries. Whereas the Catholics and Orthodox have stayed far more unified.

The Catholic Church certainly hasn't remained unified! You could say that every Protestant church owes its existence to a break-off from the Catholic Church. By saying that the Catholic Church has stayed far more unified (than the Protestant churches), all you're doing is buying into the Catholic Church's way of counting, which is to say that all the splits it has suffered through the centuries don't amount to splits at all but the newer part just materialized somewhere out of thin air.

If you were to take a cracker, for example, and break it in half, would you say of one of the pieces, "Well, this part has not split; it's intact (but just smaller than it was before)."

Where did the Lutheran churches come from? Where did the Old Catholic churches come from? The answer, of course, is that these and others came into being because of splits IN the Catholic Church, but you're considering them as not having come from the Catholic Church.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Sir ~ I would argue that faith *can* result in loyalty unto faithful works, but this is not always the case. Faith implies a trust in something or someone. Loyalty can be resultant, but not in every case. I know of a man who has unshakable faith in Christ to save him. He quotes the Scriptures and passionately deffends Christ as the Only Way. He is deeply, joyfully sure that he will enter Paradise. He also has exhibited unrepentant sins and continues to. When pointed out to him, he responds "I believe, therefore I am saved". This man likely recognizes Christ as Saviour but has not understood that Christ will look for fruits, and that righteous works are needed. His faith is in many ways stronger than mine. He is loyal to Christ as an idea, but though his faith is strong, he seems to feel no need to keep the commandments of the NT unto eternal life. Ask him why and he responds " we are saved by faith and not by works!" Imho this can be attributed in part to some of the misunderstandings that can result from Sola Fide.

Faith is not belief, faith is loyalty. Abraham was justified by being loyal to God, by being willing to obey Him, by trying to sacrifice his son. Rahab was justified by changing her loyalty from being loyal to her country to being loyal to God, by betraying her country:

James 2:
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?22You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. 24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Luther likely did have some good qualities. Most people do, regardless of faith. But would a wonderfully Christian man advocate for the drowning of Jews? Or violently curse his theological opponents? Or permit the persecution of percieved heretics? Or encourage his friends to "sin boldly" so as to infuriate the Enemy? Have many Catholics been similarly contrary over the years? Sure. But Luther advocated for salvation by faith plus nothing. Did Luther feel any need to keep the commandments of Christ, or would he have been as comfortable disobeying with no fear of eternal consequence, so long as he continued to believe on Christ to justify him by faith alone?

That answer may lie with the recognition of several important points. For one, none of us is sinless. We are all sinners, no matter how many fruits we also produce. We are children of a fallen race, even though God has provided a way for us to be saved despite our shortcomings.

For another, Luther was a wonderfully Christian man in many respects not mentioned in your post. So in the end, he was both an example of Christlike living and an example of human frailty...in other words, just like everyone of the rest of those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ.