What's the use of faith alone?

ARBITER01 said:

I have the faith of The Son of GOD, but I'm not sure how it would be alone.

Click to expand...

Faith, without any manifestation of that faith, is dead.

Xeno.of.athens said:

If you have faith and it is alone what is the use of it?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't know, but I'll inform you when I bump into someone who does.

ARBITER01 said:

I have the faith of The Son of GOD, but I'm not sure how it would be alone.

Click to expand...

Not sure what is the faith of The Son of God is. Do you mean you have faith in The Son of God.

But faith alone is when a person wants God's free gift of Eternal Life and to become a pernamnet born again child of God. The only object of their belief (to receive Eternal Life) is place only in Jesus and not other actions they may do. Like repentance of sin, confessing Jesus, being baptized, following Jesus, loving God, obeying the commandments, saying a prayer, etc......

Hoping2 said:

Faith, without any manifestation of that faith, is dead.

Click to expand...

Indeed, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” (James 2:26)

ARBITER01 said:

I have the faith of The Son of GOD, but I'm not sure how it would be alone.

Click to expand...

True, James indicated Faith cannot be alone. But the Protestant formula "Faith Alone" always intended to have a context, and not be taken insensibly and without context.

In context, "Faith Alone" is speaking of the means of Justification. We have faith in Christ who alone did the work of our Justification.

Our own works did not justify us. Hence, "Faith Alone" is the basis of our Justification--not our own works of Self-Justification. It is our faith in Christ that enables our Justification because his works alone was able to justify us.

There are works we do that contribute to our being justified, but these works are not the basis of our Justification. One of our "works" is to simply believe that Christ is our means of Justification.

Another "work" that we do, in our approach to "being justified," is repenting. We repent in order to give Christ the place in our life where otherwise there is only independent initiative.

So, we must believe in Christ and we must repent, making him the primary inspiration in our life. These works do not justify us but they approach Christ who alone did the work of justifying us.

RandyPNW said:

otherwise there is only independent initiative.

Click to expand...

Define please

timothyu said:

Define please

Click to expand...

God is a covenant God. When we walk with God in a covenant relationship we have a partnership and we have an agreement. Independent Initiative means there is no partnership and no agreement. No covenant relationship.

All one is left with without God's partnership is Independent Initiative. We do not consult God, but use Him for our own ends, and not for His ends. That is the definition of Sin--the knowledge of good and evil and living with Independent Initiative with the choice to pursue either apart from God's direction.

RandyPNW said:

True, James indicated Faith cannot be alone. But the Protestant formula "Faith Alone" always intended to have a context, and not be taken insensibly and without context.

In context, "Faith Alone" is speaking of the means of Justification. We have faith in Christ who alone did the work of our Justification.

Our own works did not justify us. Hence, "Faith Alone" is the basis of our Justification--not our own works of Self-Justification. It is our faith in Christ that enables our Justification because his works alone was able to justify us.

There are works we do that contribute to our being justified, but these works are not the basis of our Justification. One of our "works" is to simply believe that Christ is our means of Justification.

Another "work" that we do, in our approach to "being justified," is repenting. We repent in order to give Christ the place in our life where otherwise there is only independent initiative.

So, we must believe in Christ and we must repent, making him the primary inspiration in our life. These works do not justify us but they approach Christ who alone did the work of justifying us.

Click to expand...

One of the issues is that slogans remove all context and tend to take on a life of their own. So while sola fide when understood in its proper context, and with appropriate nuance, would likely be acceptable to all mainstream Christians, it has led to a great deal of confusion and the rise of antinomian heresy among mainline Protestants. This has been especially problematic because of the polemical nature of the discussion, as Catholics have gotten a lot of mileage out of ignoring the nuance and context and Protestants have leaned into more extreme presentations of the doctrine in a sort of purity test in separating themselves from Catholics.

RandyPNW said:

That is the definition of Sin--the knowledge of good and evil and living with Independent Initiative with the choice to pursue either apart from God's direction.

Click to expand...

Ok thanks. Good.

Fervent said:

One of the issues is that slogans remove all context and tend to take on a life of their own. So while sola fide when understood in its proper context, and with appropriate nuance, would likely be acceptable to all mainstream Christians, it has led to a great deal of confusion and the rise of antinomian heresy among mainline Protestants. This has been especially problematic because of the polemical nature of the discussion, as Catholics have gotten a lot of mileage out of ignoring the nuance and context and Protestants have leaned into more extreme presentations of the doctrine in a sort of purity test in separating themselves from Catholics.

Click to expand...

brilliant! I think that is so right on! I couldn't characterize it any better. The meaning is lost in the slogan.

And when people engage in prideful back and forths, the meaning is lost even further. The extreme Right would say we need do nothing. Christ will do it for us. It's a matter of predestination.

The extreme Left would say we have to follow all of the Catholic Sacraments, along with good deeds done in the name of the Faith. But there is little appreciation for the importance of God's Word being contained within our efforts in order to make our nominallly good deeds truly good.

Thank you!

RandyPNW said:

RandyPNW said:

Left would say

Click to expand...

Right would say

Click to expand...

And the Father would say my Kingdom is neither of these so how about what I say instead

RandyPNW said:

brilliant! I think that is so right on! I couldn't characterize it any better. The meaning is lost in the slogan

Click to expand...

Thanks, I suppose.

RandyPNW said:

.

And when people engage in prideful back and forths, the meaning is lost even further. The extreme Right would say we need do nothing. Christ will do it for us. It's a matter of predestination.

Click to expand...

Yes, there's little attempt to understand the ins and outs especially as the views became tied with politics. Though I more had in mind the sort of believers who actively push back about any sort of sense of conscience by insisting that justification by faith exhausts salvation.

RandyPNW said:

The extreme Left would say we have to follow all of the Catholic Sacraments, along with good deeds done in the name of the Faith. But there is little appreciation for the importance of God's Word being contained within our efforts in order to make our nominallly good deeds truly good.

Click to expand...

A great point, and speaks to why the doctrine was important in the first place. There was little appreciation for the true grace of God in the offering as rather than emphasizing the transformative nature of faith; the burden was inordinately placed on the penitent to maintain their salvation. And it was largely done because the nature of the gospel as the conference of unmerited favor doesn't fill the coffers the same way that illicitely selling indulgences does. And I don't mean that to be a criticism of indulgences writ large, merely how they functioned in the 16th century church to conceal the gospel message.

RandyPNW said:

Thank you!

Click to expand...

Glad you found it worthwhile.

Fervent said:

Thanks, I suppose.

Yes, there's little attempt to understand the ins and outs especially as the views became tied with politics. Though I more had in mind the sort of believers who actively push back about any sort of sense of conscience by insisting that justification by faith exhausts salvation.

A great point, and speaks to why the doctrine was important in the first place. There was little appreciation for the true grace of God in the offering as rather than emphasizing the transformative nature of faith; the burden was inordinately placed on the penitent to maintain their salvation. And it was largely done because the nature of the gospel as the conference of unmerited favor doesn't fill the coffers the same way that illicitely selling indulgences does. And I don't mean that to be a criticism of indulgences writ large, merely how they functioned in the 16th century church to conceal the gospel message.

Glad you found it worthwhile.

Click to expand...

I did. I found your added comments worthwhile, as well.

timothyu said:

And the Father would say my Kingdom is neither of these so how about what I say

Click to expand...

Of course. It's the Lord's word that matters most of all, because not only is it perfect, but it is internal and spiritual, producing with us the needed results. But I was looking out how "Faith Alone" has been traditionally looked at, properly or not. Thanks.

We've all heard of "Sloppy Agape," or "Cheap Grace." True Grace requires that we act in concert with God's Word, which is preciselly why it is so important to hear straight from God, and not just from men. Keep in mind that men can be adquate ambassadors of the Lord's word. So, we must not ignore them, even with their flaws.

RandyPNW said:

True Grace requires that we act in concert with God's Word, which is preciselly why it is so important to hear straight from God

Click to expand...

Exactly. Him through us, rather than how we think He would want.

Xeno.of.athens said:

If you have faith and it is alone what is the use of it?

Click to expand...

The usefulness of faith in our lives insists on faith not being alone.

Which, of course, is not what "faith alone" is communicating; "faith alone" is shorthand for speaking of how through faith alone God justifies us by His grace alone, on account of Christ alone. God, in meeting me in the Gospel, gives me faith, and through faith gifts me the imputed righteousness of Christ; so that I am reckoned righteous because of what Jesus has done, not what I have done.

Faith alone is not about the usefulness of faith in the myriad applications of Christian living; but in the passive reception of God's justifying grace and work. In the context of justification, faith is like the empty hand of the beggar into which God deposits the wealth of His mercy.

Usefulness, well that speaks of what we do now that we have faith, as a people who have benefitted of God's gifts, having heard God's promises, believed those promises--how then should we live, what shall we do? How does faith now work itself out in our daily lives? In these things, we aren't talking about faith alone, but faith working in love, faith in cooperation with the Holy Spirit who is always at work in us.

If I shipwreck my faith, then faith becomes dead; which is why repentance and good works are not optional for Christian living, but utterly necessary. Not to justify me before God; but because God justifies me I am now to live a holy life--and a holy life does not come by sitting on my hands, but by following Jesus and being daily transformed by the Holy Spirit, being conformed to the image of Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

RandyPNW said:

The extreme Left would say we have to follow all of the Catholic Sacraments, along with good deeds done in the name of the Faith. But there is little appreciation for the importance of God's Word being contained within our efforts in order to make our nominallly good deeds truly good.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about how God's Word necessarily applies in this context but the CC for centuries has taught that our good works are meaningful and authentic only as the Holy Spirit is contained within-or guiding- our efforts. Only when the branch is connected to the Vine, to put it another way. This is why the concept of communion is central in the Catholic faith.

Hoping2 said:

Faith, without any manifestation of that faith, is dead.

Click to expand...

This is what some people call backloading works.

Front-Loading works into the Gospel would like something this:

“For you to be saved you have to be willing to give up your life first”

“You need to stop sinning and live holy, or else you cannot be saved”

“In order for you to be saved, you need to be baptized in water, keep the sacraments, do penance, and join our church to be saved.”

And usually this happens when Salvation and Discipleship are Combined together. For example, When a preacher says to a sinner:

“Before you can be saved, you have to be willing to follow Christ Jesus for the rest of your life.”

What that preacher just did is combine Salvation with Discipleship. And the two are different. Salvation is not discipleship. And Discipleship is not Salvation. Salvation is a one time event, where as Discipleship is a life long process.

Another example of combining Salvation and Discipleship together would be a preacher saying something like this:

“If you want to be saved, you have to be willing to forsake all, give up your life, even hate your own life and be willing to deny yourself and follow Christ. In order for you to be truly saved, you must do these things.”

This again is a prime example of mixing Salvation with Discipleship. Hence, what you have here is works based salvation. Where one is Front-Loading works into the Gospel. But Salvation is not of works, but it is only by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the Gift of God. Not of Works, Lest any man should Boast. (Eph. 2:8-9).

Now those examples I just gave you deal with someone who, once again, is front-loading works into the Gospel. But what does it look like when someone is back-loading works into the Gospel?

Front-loading works into the Gospel is actually rather obvious. Since they are actually telling you up front that you must do those works in order to be saved. But when someone is back-loading works into the Gospel, it isn’t that clear, since it is more subtil. But here are a few examples of back-loading works into the Gospel:

“Well, while we are saved by grace through Faith without works. Still though, true saving faith Will produce good works.”

“We are saved by grace through faith in Christ, BUT true saving grace will change you, and you will bring forth fruit and good works, if you have been truly saved.”

“We are not preaching works based salvation, BUT we are preaching Salvation-Works.”

“We are saved by grace through faith that Works.”

“We are not saved by works, BUT true salvation and true faith will have works.”

“We are saved by grace through Faith, BUT true saving faith will have the good works. Good works will accompany saving faith.”

Now those are some examples of a person who is back-loading works into the Gospel.

Telling a sinner when they get saved, that they Will do good works. And that those good works are proof that they have been truly saved.