Why faith alone?

What is frequently missed in these discussions is, perhaps, what is meant by faith. For many faith translates to "belief", that is, mental assent and adherence to a set of propositions, ergo, "I believe that Jesus is the Christ" is a theological proposition; thus one hears "faith alone" and imagines that it means believing in a particular theological proposition or set of theological propositions and that this is what saves. This isn't what the Reformers were talking about when they spoke of saving faith.

Firstly, this faith is not an innate quality or property or power of man.
Secondly, this faith is not assent to a proposition, it is trust.
Thirdly, this faith is the gift of God, from outside ourselves.
Fourthly, this faith looks to Jesus Christ, it is not just trust, it is trust upon Jesus Christ.

To treat faith as the innate power of man, and as assent to propositions ("belief") would be another kind of work; as such dispute over "faith alone" or "faith and works" becomes irrelevant since it becomes a debate over what sorts of works we contribute to our salvation and place before God. The position of the Reformers, however, was straight to the point: There is nothing we can do, contribute, will, or accomplish which can benefit us in relation to God who has, already, freely and graciously, accomplished all things for us through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Faith, therefore, is not the thing I contribute to complete the work of God, faith is the way in which God takes His work and works it upon me; that I look not to myself but to Jesus Christ. And it is Christ alone who saves. The central "sola" of the Reformation is Christ Alone.

Since this faith is not mere belief, but a cleaving trust in Jesus Christ; the question of "faith or works?" becomes moot, since this faith naturally results in good works, not in order that one might be justified by them, but in order to in faithful obedience to his serve his neighbor in love. The faithful servant does not ask his master, upon doing the bare minimum commanded of him, how his master will reward him; the faithful servant simply does them. It is the unfaithful servant who obeys his master only for the glory of reward. The good works we do we do not for glory or reward, but out of faithful obedience and love; for we have been created for good works, to walk in them. Not that we might score brownie points with God, not that we might prove ourselves holy or righteous by them (indeed, if brought upon the scale all our good works would amount to nothing at all, and we would rightly hang our heads in sorrow for our countless failures)--but they are done because of the One who says they are to be done; because your neighbor is hungry, feed him. Because your neighbor is thirsty, give her drink. Because there are those that are homeless, naked, sick, in prison, and are strangers then love them; walk humbly, be merciful, and pursue justice for the least of these.

God doesn't need your good works. But your neighbor does.

-CryptoLutheran

zippy2006 said:

Sola fide is the Latin shorthand for the Protestant claim that we are justified by faith alone. In this thread I want to hear why Protestants think we are justified by faith alone, but I am not interested in scriptural justifications. You might try to answer this question, "Why did God enact the principle of justification by faith alone?" What is the reason for such a doctrine? Why might God have given it to us? How does it help you in your faith? What truths does it safeguard, etc.?

To cite an example, John Piper gives some rationale for sola fide in this video. One of his basic reasons is this: sola fide gives us an assurance and certainty that pave the way for good works. Without sola fide we would not produce any fruits, any good works.

If you like, you can give scriptural justification for your answer. For example, if you were John Piper you could give scriptural support for the idea that good works are necessary, or that sola fide gives us assurance and certainty. I'm just not interested in proof texts for the doctrine of sola fide itself.

Click to expand...

I can't help you. A corollary of 'sola fide' is 'sola scriptura'. Take away the Word of God and its self-authenticating justifications and I have absolutely nothing left, absolutely nothing to say.

zippy2006 said:

Sola fide is the Latin shorthand for the Protestant claim that we are justified by faith alone. In this thread I want to hear why Protestants think we are justified by faith alone, but I am not interested in scriptural justifications. You might try to answer this question, "Why did God enact the principle of justification by faith alone?" What is the reason for such a doctrine? Why might God have given it to us? How does it help you in your faith? What truths does it safeguard, etc.?

To cite an example, John Piper gives some rationale for sola fide in this video. One of his basic reasons is this: sola fide gives us an assurance and certainty that pave the way for good works. Without sola fide we would not produce any fruits, any good works.

If you like, you can give scriptural justification for your answer. For example, if you were John Piper you could give scriptural support for the idea that good works are necessary, or that sola fide gives us assurance and certainty. I'm just not interested in proof texts for the doctrine of sola fide itself.

Click to expand...

The sola fide argument is summed up in either 1 or 2 Timothy, where Pauld wrote "ye have known from your youth the Holy Scripture, which is able to make you wise unto salvation." (paraphrased)
An entirely Protestant construction of this passage does not necessarily seem entirely warranted, however.
I didn't read the comments, sorry if I'm repeating anyone.

zippy2006 said:

Whether faith is propositional assent or trust it remains a human act, something we do. You can stipulate that it isn't something we do, but rather is something God does. But it's a pretty bare stipulation. Pelagius could just as easily have stipulated that works aren't something we do, but rather something God does.

Click to expand...

From the Lutheran perspective faith isn't a property of the intellect--even the newborn child can have saving faith. Since baptism is efficacious word, the baptized child has faith since "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ". Baptism isn't efficacious because there is anything intrinsic to the application of water, or to the one performing the sacramental action; but because of the word attached to and connected to it; as Augustine says, the Sacraments are verbum invisibilis, invisible word; and also, "Accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum", that is, "The word is added to the element, and there results the Sacrament"; it is the word of God that causes this to be, the word which causes and creates faith (Romans 10:17).

-CryptoLutheran

zippy2006 said:

Whether faith is propositional assent or trust it remains a human act, something we do. You can stipulate that it isn't something we do, but rather is something God does. But it's a pretty bare stipulation. Pelagius could just as easily have stipulated that works aren't something we do, but rather something God does.

Click to expand...

Bear in mind that Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2). The fact that we believe is predicated on the claims of Christ, the claim of Sonship (Mark 12:1-12), that the kingdom of God as being near (Matthew 12:22-28). The Gospel is focused on Jesus Christ, called, ”the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (John 1:1). John the Baptist, at the baptism of Jesus witnessed the heavenly announcement of Jesus' Sonship (John 1:11; Matthew 3:17; Luke 3:22). This announcement is repeated during Jesus' transfiguration and followed by the command, "Listen to him”, literally hear and heed (Mark 9:7; Matthew 17:5; Luke 9:35). The parable of the sower indicates if your heart isn’t hardened in unbelief, chocked out with the deceitfulness of riches or the cares of this life, that’s the saving faith that bears fruit (Luke 8:12-13).

The focus in the gospel isn't as much that we believe as what we are to believe. Those insights are possible only as the result of a miracle.

That insight, 'enlightenment', comes through the word of God and in the power of the Holy Spirit. Then there is a time of decision, if you reject it repentance is no longer possible, if you receive the word and continue in the faith, your salvation is as sure as the Sonship of Christ.

Grace and peace,
Mark

zippy2006 said:

But is it a human act?

Above you say, "Faith is trust upon Jesus Christ." When we trust we act, therefore faith is an act. It is something we do. For this reason I do not see the point of your distinctions in post 21. Suppose Lutherans believe that faith is not propositional assent, but rather a kind of trust. How does that invalidate the basic charge that it is an act? (I never made such a charge, but since you brought it up I thought it worth discussing.)



I'm not sure how useful it would be to pursue this angle. The baptism of an infant is not the paradigm case of faith, and it presupposes the paradigm case of faith in an adult. It is a kind of special case, and it is tenuous to argue from an exception to a rule. For example, the baptism of an infant will take a different external form than the baptism of an adult, and we are not justified in saying that because we require no confession of faith from the infant we therefore ought to require no confession of faith from the adult.

Of course in Catholicism we also believe an infant is infused with supernatural faith upon baptism, but the theology of faith does not take this as its starting point.

Click to expand...

Faith is not really something you do, it's something you have. When I put my trust in the finished work of Christ for my salvation, I'm yielding to the reality that He is working on my behalf. So, it's not me doing, it's Him doing.

I think the real difference in this debate is the view of Sanctification. Justification to the Protestant seems to be the most important thing, with sanctification following but not ultimately necessary since it's all done by God. There is no purgatory in Protestantism, no wrestling with those desires and sins we will all ultimately die with, death is seemingly the purgation of those desires if we are justified and the seal of them if we not. God is not helping us overcome our sin, rather he seemingly takes over our autonomy because we cannot be doing the good under a Protestant paradigm (since we are all utterly depraved or completely fallen away).

In my view of things I cannot separate my own sanctification from my justification. The intimately connected and both need to be worked out. Sola fide seems to destroy my need to be holy because I don't need to be Holy, all I need is for God to take over and be Holy in me. That is the real difference, in one view our autonomy is something God respects and in another he just asserts control.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I think the real difference in this debate is the view of Sanctification. Justification to the Protestant seems to be the most important thing, with sanctification following but not ultimately necessary since it's all done by God. There is no purgatory in Protestantism, no wrestling with those desires and sins we will all ultimately die with, death is seemingly the purgation of those desires if we are justified and the seal of them if we not. God is not helping us overcome our sin, rather he seemingly takes over our autonomy because we cannot be doing the good under a Protestant paradigm (since we are all utterly depraved or completely fallen away).

In my view of things I cannot separate my own sanctification from my justification. The intimately connected and both need to be worked out. Sola fide seems to destroy my need to be holy because I don't need to be Holy, all I need is for God to take over and be Holy in me. That is the real difference, in one view our autonomy is something God respects and in another he just asserts control.

Click to expand...

This is the central misunderstanding that Rome (and apparently EO) has with the gospel. They confuse the concepts of justification and sanctification. Justification is monergistic, whereas sanctification is synergistic. Our justification comes by trusting in the finished work of Christ. Our sanctification comes by cooperating with the Holy Spirit in applying righteousness to our lives. Justification is instantaneous (we are born again) whereas sanctification is a life long struggle and is not completed until we pass from this life unto the next where we are finally glorified.

Not all protestants agree on the exact process.

mcarmichael said:

The sola fide argument is summed up in either 1 or 2 Timothy, where Pauld wrote "ye have known from your youth the Holy Scripture, which is able to make you wise unto salvation." (paraphrased)
An entirely Protestant construction of this passage does not necessarily seem entirely warranted, however.
I didn't read the comments, sorry if I'm repeating anyone.

Click to expand...

Oh well. Same principle, probably.

zippy2006 said:

But isn't yielding doing something?

Let's take an example. Suppose your father is on his deathbed and you very much wish for him to be baptized, but he is resisting. What do you do? You try to convince him to believe, to have faith. You may do this in many ways, but at the end of the day your eyes are on your father, awaiting something that must come from him. Call it whatever you like: believing, yielding, surrendering, trusting... It remains true that you are waiting for him to do something so that he might be baptized. If he dies without being baptized, it will be because he failed to do what was necessary for baptism.

Click to expand...

Okay, yes, yielding is doing something, but it's not doing "work".

I'm not going to respond to your "baptism" example because it contains too many assumptions.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I think the real difference in this debate is the view of Sanctification. Justification to the Protestant seems to be the most important thing, with sanctification following but not ultimately necessary since it's all done by God. There is no purgatory in Protestantism, no wrestling with those desires and sins we will all ultimately die with, death is seemingly the purgation of those desires if we are justified and the seal of them if we not. God is not helping us overcome our sin, rather he seemingly takes over our autonomy because we cannot be doing the good under a Protestant paradigm (since we are all utterly depraved or completely fallen away).

Click to expand...

Hey Ignatius, first off, you're EO, so Purgatory What's up with that?

As for what Protestants believe about the faith, I think you may be getting a couple of things wrong

For instance, we believe that "justification" is a wholly monergistic work of God that we, as spiritually "dead" men and women .. e.g. Ephesians 2:1-3 cf Romans 3:10-12, are incapable of participating in.

Sanctification (IOW, that which follows our justification and continues on to Glory), is a mighty work that God accomplishes in us .. e.g. Philippians 1:6, 2:3, but now that we are alive in Christ spiritually, we are able to participate in our growth in Christlikeness alongside of God, though I don't believe I would go as far as my Catholic friends do and say that we "cooperate" in that growth. So it is, IOW, a synergistic work with God.

As for the living the Christian life (sanctification), of course we believe that God is helping us move farther and farther away from our sinful selves. That, in fact, is why He changed us and saved us, as well the principle thing that He saved us from (though being saved from God's wrath .. e.g. Romans 5:9, as well being saved from an eternity apart from Him in Hell .. e.g. Matthew 25:46, are certainly additional benefits ).

We also wrestle with our sinful desires, just like you guys do, BECAUSE God changed us and gave us a new nature, and with it new desires (which first and foremost includes the 24/7 desire to both please and obey Him in this life).

So the Protestant life is hardly about 1) being saved and then 2) waiting to die to be made more like Christ. Rather, it is more than doubtful that such a person (one who "claims" to be a Christian but does not strive daily, moment by moment, in fact, to be more Christlike) ever became a Christian to begin with, no matter what they may have prayed at some moment in the past.

Yours and His,
David

ViaCrucis said:

From the Lutheran perspective faith isn't a property of the intellect--even the newborn child can have saving faith. Since baptism is efficacious word, the baptized child has faith since "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ". Baptism isn't efficacious because there is anything intrinsic to the application of water, or to the one performing the sacramental action; but because of the word attached to and connected to it; as Augustine says, the Sacraments are verbum invisibilis, invisible word; and also, "Accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum", that is, "The word is added to the element, and there results the Sacrament"; it is the word of God that causes this to be, the word which causes and creates faith (Romans 10:17).

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

What about unborn children?

Only thing I'll add that "by faith alone" is an entirely Lutheran construction, and imho diminishes the grace of God.
So, properly it is: "by grace, through faith", which nobody should have a problem with.

zippy2006 said:

But isn't yielding doing something?

Click to expand...

Hi Zippy, we are the ones who choose to believe, and we are the ones doing the believing, but God gets the credit nevertheless. Why? 1) because without the "gift" of faith from God (faith/πίστις [pistis] is a noun, BTW .. Ephesians 2:8), we would not be capable of believing and 2) because ALL who receive that particular gift from God WILL eventually choose to believe.

We Calvinists believe/teach that God's saving grace is irresistible to us (remember the "I" in TULIP). So we choose to believe only because He enables us to believe, and all of those He enables WILL come to faith. Therefore, though we are really and truly the ones who do the believing, He is still the one who gets the credit for it

Now, while you may or may not believe part or all of what our little acrostic "TULIP" teaches, it is at least safe to say that it is consistent in what it teaches, from top to bottom

Yours and His,
David

St_Worm2 said:

Hi Zippy, you pivoted to "works", so I naturally pivoted to "grace", since salvation by God's "grace" is the consummate opposite of a salvation by our "works" (again, grace = God's UN-merited favor towards us) .. cf Romans 11:6

As far as faith being unimportant, nothing could be further from the truth, because it's by the exercise of our faith that we believe/trust/know that He will save us in the gracious manner He promised us He would. To quote my Lutheran brother from earlier in this thread,

​

This is why sola fide remains one of the five ways the Reformers describe a salvation that is by God alone. IOW, salvation is not about us and/or what 'we' do, it's all about Him and what He does and did for us. Salvation is by God's grace, through faith, apart from works we do of any kind .. Ephesians 2:8-9; cf John 5:24. If fact, we come to faith because we are made His workmanship, by God, created (as wholly new creatures) in Christ Jesus FOR good works .. Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17.

The works that we do are therefore the result or fruit of our salvation, not the cause or the reason for it

As for the instrumental cause, the battle cry of the Reformation (since you brought it up ), it was and remains the same for both Lutherans and Calvinists, sola fide (which again, is simply a way of expressing the fact that salvation is of God alone/the works that He does .. and that it's not about us/the things that we 'do' .. Titus 3:5).

Yours in Christ.
David

Romans 4
5 To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.​

Click to expand...

Quote
As far as faith being unimportant, nothing could be further from the truth, because it's by the exercise of our faith that we believe/trust/know that He will save us in the gracious manner He promised us He would.

The above excerpt seems to say that works prove the presence of grace, a symptom of salvation.

Do the presence of works really give assurance of salvation?

I proved that Paul taught that Gentiles could be baptised by displaying faith alone, without works (circumcision and other rituals of obedience).

I also showed that the works which Scripture seemed to say were required for proof of real faith, after initial faith was exhibited (which was required for entry) were costly. Abraham worked by giving Isaac to God, Rahab worked by risking her life to help the Israelites.

However some posts seem to infer that the works are clues of the reception of grace, through believing Jesus was Lord, the belief also being a gift, instead of being a proof of real loyalty.

So in their version, works prove one is saved, gives assurance of salvation.

They also continue to perpetuate the mistake of interpreting faith as belief, mental assent.

The process they describe is this:

1. Faith, belief that Jesus is Lord, is a gift.
2. This faith results in grace, power.
3. This power can be used, by stepping out in attempting and succeeding in doing good works.
4. These good works are not a sign of inherent righteousness of a believer.
5. The righteousness of a believer is already guaranteed through imputation.
6. The good works are assurance of a functional faith. See, we struggled with good works before, now its like falling of a log!

The conclusion is that the good works are not a result of personal input, but of grace, which in turn was a result of faith, in its turn a result of God’s generosity, a gift, not worked for. No input from the believer, either for entry into the assembly, or proof required for assurance of salvation.

Why should I judge another’s faith or salvation? Views are harmless, as long as the believer avoids bad deeds, right?

Unfortunately, claims are being made that lead to insecurity. Do I really feel like leading a sacrificial life? If I don’t feel the urge, is my faith genuine?

More unfortunately, this is not an individual experience, but universal. No one feels comfortable, natural, doing good deeds. It’s not called the cross for nothing. It costs.

Also, what if the works are being done not as fruit from the presence of grace, but from fear of avoiding hell? How can we tell?

Quote

Uncertainty with Jesus Is Better than Any Other Option
Dr. R. C. Sproul is a very articulate spokesman for the view that assurance is not certainty. A few years back he described his own struggles with assurance, and in so doing he explained his view of assurance:

There are people in this world who are not saved, but who are convinced that they are. The presence of such people causes genuine Christians to doubt their salvation. After all, we wonder, suppose I am in that category? Suppose I am mistaken about my salvation and am really going to hell? How can I know that I am a real Christian?

A while back I had one of those moments of acute self-awareness that we have from time to time, and suddenly the question hit me: "R.C., what if you are not one of the redeemed? What if your destiny is not heaven after all, but hell?" Let me tell you that I was flooded in my body with a chill that went from my head to the bottom of my spine. I was terrified.

I tried to grab hold of myself. I thought, "Well, it's a good sign that I'm worried about this. Only true Christians really care about salvation." But then I began to take stock of my life, and I looked at my performance. My sins came pouring into my mind, and the more I looked at myself, the worse I felt. I thought, "Maybe it's really true. Maybe I'm not saved after all."

I went to my room and began to read the Bible. On my knees I said, "Well, here I am. I can't point to my obedience. There's nothing I can offer. I can only rely on Your atonement for my sins. I can only throw myself on Your mercy." Even then I knew that some people only flee to the Cross to escape hell, not out of a real turning to God. I could not be sure about my own heart and motivation. Then I remembered John 6:68. Jesus had been giving out hard teaching, and many of His former followers had left Him. When He asked Peter if he was also going to leave, Peter said, "Where else can I go? Only You have the words of eternal life." In other words, Peter was also uncomfortable, but he realized that being uncomfortable with Jesus was better than any other option!

According to this way of thinking, certainty is not an option. The very best option available is "being uncomfortable with Jesus."



When Assurance Is Not Assurance

zippy2006 said:

In this thread I want to hear why Protestants think we are justified by faith alone,

Click to expand...

Firstly, we are not saved by faith. We are saved by the work of Christ, i.e., His righteous life, and His death, on our behalf. We are, as Ephesians 2 says, save BY grace, THROUGH faith.

Literally, no good work is even possible until one is fully justified and secure in Christ. Good works done otherwise are done for self, not for neighbor. Just ask the "Elder Brother".

Wordkeeper said:

...works prove the presence of grace, a symptom of salvation.

Click to expand...

Hi WK, if you don't mind, let's just start with this. How can grace be a "symptom" of salvation? What do you mean by that? At best that seems backwards to me, but perhaps I am misunderstanding your meaning!?

Thanks!

Whoa, gotta go. I'll be back later today (Dv).

--David