Denominations that reject sola fide

That's right. I believe that is what distinguishes Protestants from Catholics/Orthodox, though there may be more issues.

Not so fast! Since you used the word "justification," they each have their own meanings for that. It gets pretty sticky. You could get an answer much more easily by attempting a re-phrase. They all abide by "saved by Grace," so with an apples to apples comparison you're going to find unity.

razeontherock said:

Not so fast! Since you used the word "justification," they each have their own meanings for that. It gets pretty sticky. You could get an answer much more easily by attempting a re-phrase. They all abide by "saved by Grace," so with an apples to apples comparison you're going to find unity.

Click to expand...

Hi Ray, let's try to contextualize it before it does get sticky. You mentioned to me on another thread not long ago that according to the judgment in Revelation 20, you said "believers receive a separate judgment". This is the passage:

The Final Judgment

11 And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it. The earth and sky fled from his presence, but they found no place to hide. 12 I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God’s throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds. 14 Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. 15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Click to expand...

I had read it to mean that everyone is judged "according to what they had done" then you corrected me saying "only the dead are judged", and somehow to the effect that the living are judged separately. I read this to mean those who John 8:51 (Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death). I wonder if you know of any scripture to support that those found with their name in the book of life are judged for their deeds, or is it really a case of Psalm 103:12

12 as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

Click to expand...

Also, it would be helpful to establish how one goes about getting their name into the Book of Life. I understand it is 100% by the mercy of Jesus and the grace of God that salvation is available to us, but also that Jesus says we must be obedient. This is how He said it:

Matthew 7:21
New Living Translation (NLT)
True Disciples

21 “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter.

Click to expand...

So do those particular protestant churches that Hakan101 mentioned teach that Matthew 7:21 is superseded by some other passage - is there a passage that says we aren't justified by works?

Hakan101 said:

That's right. I believe that is what distinguishes Protestants from Catholics/Orthodox, though there may be more issues.

Click to expand...

Actually RC and EO are similar but different. And some Lutherans and other protestant denominations are closer to Catholics then mainstream Protestants.

But the formula goes some thing like a 3 point check off.

1. Scripture is first
2. However it must be backed by tradition
3. must also have some historic value.

None should conflict with each other to pass.

Otherwise you get 20,000 Protestant denominations

fschmidt said:

Which denominations reject sola fide (justification by faith alone, works don't count)? I think Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do, right? Any others?

Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone that says Mat 7:21 is superseded by anything else. It's pretty hard to come up with any authority that could supersede Jesus' teaching.

But there are passages that talk about justification not being by works. There are two answers to that:

(1) justification isn't all of salvation. In normal Protestant terminology, justification means our status before God as forgiven and accepted. Salvation starts with that: God forgives us, based on our being in Christ. There's no precondition for that. But that's not all of salvation. Salvation includes something else: sanctification. After all, the point of salvation isn't just to save us from hell, but to remake us into the image of Christ. So the goal is a change in motivation and behavior. That's built on justification, but it's something other than just justification.

(2) Jesus combined two messages: forgiveness for anyone who repents, and a requirement to obey God. Mat 7:21 is about the requirement to obey. Forgiveness doesn't supersede it, but you need to take both at the same time. Jesus and Paul both seem to have the concept that everyone has a primary orientation or loyalty. We are followers of Jesus. Paul's justification is either that primary status as followers of Jesus or (if N T Wright is correct) the evidence that shows our primary status as followers. But both Jesus and Paul also believe that Christians act in certain ways, and that God will hold us accountable for doing so. I think there's a different kind of accountability for a follower of Jesus than for one who is not. But it's still real. See Heb 12:3 ff.

Jesus often warned followers that if they didn't show fruit they were in danger of being thrown in the garbage. ("hell" typically translates a Greek word that is literally the garbage pit outside Jerusalem, though it did have connotations of divine judgement.) My reading is that this was intended as motivation, and not as a real threat that his followers might end up in hell. He is too clear about forgiveness for that. But the basic model of both Jesus and Paul is:
* There's a basic orientation of being a servant of Christ. In Paul's terminology, justified.
* Good works don't save in themselves. They come after justification. Or in Jesus' terms, good trees produce good fruit. We don't produce good works by piling up laws, but by changing people's motivations.
* They aren't optional. We will be held accountable for what we do and don't do.
* But God is forgiving, so no one should doubt their salvation.

There is a certain tension between the requirement to obey and forgiveness. How can be really be accountable for obedience if we can always get forgiveness? Jesus seemed to be willing to take that risk, since he's equally clear about both. I suspect that's because of his concentration on motivation. I think he believed that it is more effective to motivate people by love for God and our neighbor than by fear of damnation. But we have to face the fact that Jesus did speak of unfruitful servants being consigned to the outer darkness a fair amount. Paul has exactly the same tension. In Romans he speaks of justification by faith alone apart from works. But in 1 Cor he is quite clear that there are things that you can't do and be saved. We can't read Romans without 1 Cor if we want a true picture of his teaching. It's clear that justification isn't the whole picture for Paul. Justification is our status as part of the covenant people, and it's purely by grace. But being part of the people has obligations.

fschmidt said:

These Christian details go over my head. I don't know what "saved by Grace" means. So let me make it simple. Which denominations think one is required to follow the 10 commandments? Those commandments are all about action, not belief/faith.

I'm an atheist who loves the Old Testament. I like Jesus. The Pharisees can't see the forest through the trees, and Jesus rightly criticizes this. But nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus ever suggest redemption through faith. Everything Jesus says is entirely consistent with the Old Testament. The idea of God's forgiveness by sincere repentance comes right from the Old Testament. On the other hand, I hate Paul. What he says seems contrary to both the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus. Paul brought up the idea of redemption through faith. And then Martin Luther threw out all that was good about Christianity with his sola fide idea. Anyway, that's my understanding.

Click to expand...

Wow, an atheist post I can actually respect! Thank you I never thought this could happen. I sincerely mean it. Your perspective is appreciated and thanks for not belittling or being condensending!

fschmidt said:

These Christian details go over my head. I don't know what "saved by Grace" means. So let me make it simple. Which denominations think one is required to follow the 10 commandments? Those commandments are all about action, not belief/faith.

I'm an atheist who loves the Old Testament. I like Jesus. The Pharisees can't see the forest through the trees, and Jesus rightly criticizes this. But nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus ever suggest redemption through faith. Everything Jesus says is entirely consistent with the Old Testament. The idea of God's forgiveness by sincere repentance comes right from the Old Testament. On the other hand, I hate Paul. What he says seems contrary to both the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus. Paul brought up the idea of redemption through faith. And then Martin Luther threw out all that was good about Christianity with his sola fide idea. Anyway, that's my understanding.

Click to expand...

Nice insight! As far as I know, the teachings of any denomination hangs on the 10 Commandments (as Jesus pointed out, both his teaching and the Hebrew Law rested on these).

fschmidt said:

These Christian details go over my head. I don't know what "saved by Grace" means. So let me make it simple. Which denominations think one is required to follow the 10 commandments?

Click to expand...

This is completely irrelevant to your question, which is about justification. You are examining the difference between law and Grace, which is NOT an easy topic!

fschmidt said:

nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus ever suggest redemption through faith.

Click to expand...

How many Scriptures would you like? Start with this:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: (John 3:15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

fschmidt said:

Everything Jesus says is entirely consistent with the Old Testament.

Click to expand...

Yup And Abraham was righteous by Faith - BEFORE the law was ever given.

fschmidt said:

The idea of God's forgiveness by sincere repentance comes right from the Old Testament. On the other hand, I hate Paul. What he says seems contrary to both the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Every word Paul said is based in Moses. You're just not as familiar with it as him

One of the things that Jesus' taught was that no one is good except for God. All of us have sinned and we will never deserve God or salvation, otherwise we wouldn't need Jesus and His sacrifice would have been for nothing.

Most churches teach that we are saved by faith, and this is what the Bible teaches. No one, OT or NT, was ever justified by their works. Instead their faith was accredited to them as righteousness (Genesis 15:6). Jesus said that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees to get into Heaven (Matthew 5:20). The Pharisees were known for their rigorous practicing of the letter of the law. If the law could save anyone, it would be the Pharisees, but even they fall short. Our righteousness is not something we earn, but something we receive.

So faith is what saves us. However, some people have trouble figuring out where good works fit in, because we know that faith without works is dead. Still, what we have here is a discussion of whether or not the faith is alive. The good works themselves do not matter, but if they are evidence of genuine faith, then they are good. We are saved by our faith, which is proven to be genuine by the actions that faith leads us into taking.

Theologically, this is what most of the churches I've been to have taught, but they are not all equal in application. Some, for example, are traditional to the point that they discourage younger generations from joining. When our dress code, our style of music, our tattoos or lack thereof become so important that we're turning people away, then our church starts to become more about our works than it is about our faith.

So don't just go by what churches teach with their mouths. Let their actions speak louder.

fschmidt said:

But nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus ever suggest redemption through faith. Everything Jesus says is entirely consistent with the Old Testament. The idea of God's forgiveness by sincere repentance comes right from the Old Testament. On the other hand, I hate Paul. What he says seems contrary to both the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus. Paul brought up the idea of redemption through faith. And then Martin Luther threw out all that was good about Christianity with his sola fide idea. Anyway, that's my understanding.

Click to expand...

I think you're doing Paul an injustice. Romans is focused on a specific problem: claims that in order to become a Christian, people have to accept the Jewish law. He is not concerned with people claiming that you can be a Christian without doing anything about it. This leads to a one-sided focus. But in other letters he is just as insistent as Jesus that Christians have to show their faith in action.

Jesus doesn't use any term like justification by faith, nor does faith play the same central role for him that it does for Paul. But he has an equivalent concept. I believe if you read through all of Romans, and not just the proof texts, you'll find that Paul thinks there is a fundamental orientation to our lives, which he calls faith, but also other things. Jesus says this too. He's inclined to speak of people being his followers, servants, or of being members of the kingdom. Remember all those parables where people are told to sell all they have to get the pearl of great price, which is membership in the kingdom. He also uses the family terminology, with God as our father.

Jesus is also very concerned about motivation. While he speaks of obedience, when it comes down to looking at specific ethics, he tends to interpret the Law very freely, looking at intent. And he sees the Law summarized in loving God and neighbor. So although Jesus is very focused on action, he is also focused on where action comes from.

I think you can unify Paul and Jesus, with some difficulty I admit. Both see actions as important. To see that in Paul you need to look at something other the Romans proof texts, but it's there. But both see actions as coming out of a fundamental orientation, which is justification / faith for Paul and being followers / members of the Kingdom, having God as our Father for Jesus.

Why does it matter that action comes out of a fundamental relationship or status? Because if actions don't follow from some consistent approach of loving our neighbor and following God, they're too likely to become legalistic. But more important, if there's no continuing status, there's no way to deal with failure. Jesus focuses on two things: the need for obedience, but also the love of the father for his people, which lets us deal with our failures. Without the continuing status of being one of his people, there's no basis for God to continue dealing with us even when we fail. You can't take Jesus' emphasis on obedience and separate it from his emphasis on the Father's love for his people and his desire to forgive.

The prophets have the same thing, although much of it is implicit in the context in which they operate. The prophets do more than demand right behavior and threaten national punishment. They also speak of God as a crazy lover who keeps loving his people despite being jilted. The implicit (and sometimes explicit) context is that they are speaking to the covenant people, who have a permanent status as God's people. It's that status of being one of God's people, in a Christian context where God's people are no longer a specific nation, that Paul means by justification and Jesus means by being his followers.

Paul's specific task was making the transition from God's people as one nation to God's people as all of those who have faith in Christ. As N T Wright says, for Paul faith has the same status as the badge of membership that birth within the covenant people (or circumcision) has in the OT. During his life, Jesus preached primarily to Jews, so he didn't as explicitly face this problem. He did define the Kingdom as all of his followers. So he certainly did nothing to suggest a continuing use of the old national covenant. But he didn't explicitly talk about changing the primary marker of covenant membership from the circumcision to faith in Christ. If you prefer, read following Christ rather than faith in Christ. That aligns it more with Jesus' terminology, but it's the same thing.

If your concern is that Paul isn't closely enough aligned with the OT, I suggest looking at the most recent generation of Pauline scholarship. The most visible representative of this is N T Wright. He understands Paul's justification and righteousness in OT covenantal terms. While I think he's a bit one-sided, there's a lot to be said for his understanding of justification.

It's important to realize that nowhere in the NT, nor in the 16th Cent Catholic / Protestant arguments, was there an argument between faith and works. This is a later imposition, though there's some suggestion in the NT that a few people may have misunderstood Paul in that way. Partly it's Protestant/Catholic propaganda, and partly it's caused by Protestants who have misunderstood the 16th Cent (and Biblical) terminology and created a disagreement that wasn't present in the 1st or 16th Cents.

Paul was concerned with Judaizers, people who wanted all Christians, even those originally non-Jews, to accept the Law and circumcision. He was looking at the basis on which we are accepted as part of the covenant people. The passages about justification by faith are not looking at the question of how we balance the need for obedience with God's willingness, indeed eagerness, to forgive. They are looking at what makes us part of the covenant people.

Similarly, Luther was not looking at the need for obedience. Catholic propaganda tried to formulate things that way, but that was never the actual issue. The question between Luther and the Catholics was whether Christians do have a continuing status of members of the covenant or followers of Jesus even when they sin seriously. The Protestant viewpoint is yes. We have to repent; God will treat us as disobedient children, but we are still his children. The Catholic answer was sort of no (although the continue grace of baptism modifies that answer). In serious sin we break the bond of charity, and need to have something much like a conversion again (paraphrasing the CCC). The practical issue was that this tended to lead people to trust the Church where they should trust God. At least as it came through to the common people, after serious sin our relationship with God was no longer present. So the only thing left to rely on was the sacrament of penance. Protestants believed (correctly, in my view) that it is in dealing with sin that we most need God, and he will not abandon us in our time of need.

However the problem was made worse by the fact that Luther was not confronting the best in Catholic theology. And by the time good theologians such as Cajetan were involved, things had gotten bad enough that they were under instructions to destroy Luther, not reconcile him. In retrospect that is surely the worst decision any pope has ever made. A smarter pope could surely have reconciled at least enough of Luther's followers, if not Luther himself, to avoid the split. But he might have had to make concessions that the Papacy was no longer willing to make (e.g. continued meeting of councils, and probably more independent national churches).

Those commandments are all about action, not belief/faith.

Click to expand...

Indeed- faith in the OT and in the NT never meant simply belief.

But nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus ever suggest redemption through faith. Everything Jesus says is entirely consistent with the Old Testament.

Click to expand...

Indeed - Jesus was midrashing the OT in almost all of His discourses.

On the other hand, I hate Paul. What he says seems contrary to both the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus. Paul brought up the idea of redemption through faith.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'd argue the opposite of what you say - Paul was dealing with different situations than Jesus and didn't produce a full systematic treatise on his dieas, so to compare them can be a little awkward at first. But so far as I cant ell, having spent a lot of time studying Paul/Jesus/Law/etc, Paul never contradicts Jesus and grounds himself pretty firmly in the OT. As Hedrick pointed out, faith for Paul was a type of badge of belonging - Paul is dealing with specific issues surrounding the idea of the Gentiles becoming part of the People of God. Jesus is thinking in broader terms of redemption, reinterpreting parts of Torah and the proclaiming of His Kingdom on Earth and the part His people have to play. As you astutely noted, Jesus is a big-picture kind of guy. N.T.Wright is a good guy to go to for understanding Jesus/Paul - IMO he's more on the money than most theologians working today. Here's a good starting point for getting into Wright's ideas on Jesus's self-understanding: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Self.htm - it's a pretty boring article on the whole, so here's the good parts:

'Jesus, I have argued, took upon himself the role not merely of new Moses, or a new Torah (though both of these are true), but of new Torah-giver. If we are to take this theme seriously we will again he confronted with quite new christological possibilities. Again, we must not flatten this out into an abstract or timeless ‘rule’; we must speak of the story in which Jesus and his contemporaries were living, of the role of Torah within that story, and of Jesus’ self-understanding and mission in relation to that role. What might this [59] do to our normal categories of christological discussion? How would it give us a new perspective on Christology and (what we please to call) ‘ethics’?'

'My case has been, and remains, that Jesus believed himself called to do and be things which, in the traditions to which he fell heir, only Israel’s God, YHWH, was to do and be. I think he held this belief both with passionate and firm conviction and with the knowledge that he could be making a terrible, lunatic mistake. I do not think this in any way downplays the signals of transcendence within the Gospel narratives. It is, I believe, consonant both with a full and high Christology and with the recognition that Jesus was a human figure who can be studied historically in the same way that any other human figure can be.[20] Indeed, I have come to regard such historical study not just as a possibly helpful source for theology but a vital and non-negotiable resource: not just part of the possible bene esse, but of the esse itself. Partial proof of this drastic proposal lies in observing what happens if we ignore the history: we condemn ourselves to talking about abstractions, even perhaps to making Jesus himself an abstraction. Fuller proof could only come if and when systematicians are prepared to work with the first-century Jewish categories which are there in the historical accounts of Jesus and which shaped and formed his own mindset.'

As for Paul, you could probably pick any of the articles on that site and come away better for it, but I'd start with this one: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf

It can be dense, but well worth the time - Wright, as I said before, is dead-on with regard to Jesus and Paul.

fschmidt said:

These Christian details go over my head. I don't know what "saved by Grace" means. So let me make it simple. Which denominations think one is required to follow the 10 commandments? Those commandments are all about action, not belief/faith.

I'm an atheist who loves the Old Testament. I like Jesus. The Pharisees can't see the forest through the trees, and Jesus rightly criticizes this. But nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus ever suggest redemption through faith. Everything Jesus says is entirely consistent with the Old Testament. The idea of God's forgiveness by sincere repentance comes right from the Old Testament. On the other hand, I hate Paul. What he says seems contrary to both the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus. Paul brought up the idea of redemption through faith. And then Martin Luther threw out all that was good about Christianity with his sola fide idea. Anyway, that's my understanding.

Click to expand...

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life." (John 6:47)

I think a more pertinent question may be: what is the difference between belief, repentance and doing works?

fschmidt said:

Which denominations reject sola fide (justification by faith alone, works don't count)? I think Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do, right? Any others?

Click to expand...

This largely depends on how Sola Fide is understood. Lutherans, Calvinists and Arminians have differing understandings of what is meant by Sola Fide.

-CryptoLutheran

fschmidt said:

GrayAngel, you are taking these references out of context and I would like correct that. First, Genesis 15:6:

4 Now the word of the LORD came to him: "This one will not be your heir; instead, one who comes from your own body [c] will be your heir." 5 He took him outside and said, "Look at the sky and count the stars, if you are able to count them." Then He said to him, "Your offspring will be that [numerous]."

6 Abram believed the LORD, and He credited it to him as righteousness.

In this, God spoke directly to Abraham. I may be an atheist, but if God spoke directly to me, I would listen. So this righteousness is just listening to what one is told.

Click to expand...

No. I am not taking those verses out of context. They mean exactly what I said they meant.

It doesn't matter if Moses heard God's voice audibly or not. He believed what he heard, and it was his faith that was counted as righteousness for him. But as we know, faith is proven by action. If He simply acknowledged what God said, but his actions were not consistent with his knowledge, it wouldn't have been counted as righteousness.

It's not the action itself that matters, but it's the faith that leads to action.

Also, this is not just my own interpretation. It's the interpretation given in the NT in Romans 4, Galatians 3, and James 2.

fschmidt said:

Now, more importantly, Matthew 5:20:

17 "Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter [d] or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever practices and teaches [these commandments] will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

This directly contradicts your position, and here "righteousness" clearly means right action, not faith.

Click to expand...

There is no contradiction here. Jesus was warning against the trends of their time. People like the Pharisees would teach the law, but they would teach it inaccurately. In this speech of His, Jesus had just finished listing a variety of ways they had distorted the law. The Pharisees, despite their strict adherence to the law were more guilty than anyone. These people who were held in the highest esteem by their community could not earn God's approval.

We know from scripture that no one is without sin. No one can earn God's approval by strict adherence to the law. This is why Jesus came to die.