Faith Alone

[Constantine the Sinner]

Salvation through faith alone, a defining doctrine of Protestantism. But it's not really one doctrine, since it seems to be understood in multiple ways. Broadly, I see two versions of it here. The first one is not really objectionable, it is simply this: you are saved solely through faith, salvation being a gift and not something you can earn or be worthy of; however, if your faith does not engender works, it is a "dead faith", not a living faith. Because if you were filled with true faith, works would grow (super)naturally from that (Matthew 7:18).

Then there is this other version of the doctrine, which identifies all works as "works of the law" (that is, the law of life and death, the law of sacrifice, the law of the fall, the law of the old covenant, the law of circumcision that Paul said was done away with). This version, perversely, equates all moral injunctions of the New Testament, with those of the Mosaic Covenant: as unnecessary with Christ. I see proponents of this say, for instance, that fornication is no longer a big deal, so long as you have faith. And whether or not your faith engenders works is irrelevant.

The second versions seems Satanic to me. Doing away with circumcision and eating Kosher, doesn't mean doing away with morality altogether. It means morality is no longer in an eye-for-an-eye, sacrificial framework, but rather in the framework of God's grace making it possible for you to become his vessel and through His Spirit's guidance do good works. But you actually have to submit yourself to the Holy Spirit; if you just ignore Him and continue to disregard His grace, that's not Christian at all. Yes, we are all sinners, but that is precisely why we must be contrite, mournful, in great sorrow over our sins, like the Publican who beat his breast, like the woman who washed Christ's feet with her tears; just saying, "Yessirree, I sure do sin," there's something wrong with that. There is no contrition in that at all.

 

[Albion]

Salvation through faith alone, a defining doctrine of Protestantism. But it's not really one doctrine, since it seems to be understood in multiple ways. Broadly, I see two versions of it here. The first one is not really objectionable, it is simply this: you are saved solely through faith, salvation being a gift and not something you can earn or be worthy of; however, if your faith does not engender works, it is a "dead faith", not a living faith. Because if you were filled with true faith, works would grow (super)naturally from that (Matthew 7:18).

Then there is this other version of the doctrine, which identifies all works as "works of the law" (that is, the law of life and death, the law of sacrifice, the law of the fall, the law of the old covenant, the law of circumcision that Paul said was done away with). This version, perversely, equates all moral injunctions of the New Testament, with those of the Mosaic Covenant: as unnecessary with Christ. I see proponents of this say, for instance, that fornication is no longer a big deal, so long as you have faith. And whether or not your faith engenders works is irrelevant.

The second versions seems Satanic to me. Doing away with circumcision and eating Kosher, doesn't mean doing away with morality altogether. It means morality is no longer in an eye-for-an-eye, sacrificial framework, but rather in the framework of God's grace making it possible for you to become his vessel and through His Spirit's guidance do good works. But you actually have to submit yourself to the Holy Spirit; if you just ignore Him and continue to disregard His grace, that's not Christian at all. Yes, we are all sinners, but that is precisely why we must be contrite, mournful, in great sorrow over our sins, like the Publican, like the woman who washed Christ's feet with her tears; just saying, "Yessirree, I sure do sin," there's something wrong with that. There is no contrition in that at all.

Yeh, you're probably correct about the main point. But as with Orthodoxy, there are individuals within the church whose views are shockingly at odds with what their own church teaches. We do not, as a result, characterize the church or all members as being in that camp. And we do not say that there are two different and opposed views that are representative of that church.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Yeh, you're probably correct about the main point. But as with Orthodoxy, there are individuals within the church whose views are shockingly at odds with what their own church teaches. We do not, as a result, characterize the church or all members as being in that camp. And we do not say that there are two different and opposed views that are representative of that church.

We anathematize individuals who publicly espouse heresy (Galatians 1:8-9). Always have. Remember, "accursed" is a translation of "anathema".

 

[bbbbbbb]

Salvation through faith alone, a defining doctrine of Protestantism. But it's not really one doctrine, since it seems to be understood in multiple ways. Broadly, I see two versions of it here. The first one is not really objectionable, it is simply this: you are saved solely through faith, salvation being a gift and not something you can earn or be worthy of; however, if your faith does not engender works, it is a "dead faith", not a living faith. Because if you were filled with true faith, works would grow (super)naturally from that (Matthew 7:18).

Then there is this other version of the doctrine, which identifies all works as "works of the law" (that is, the law of life and death, the law of sacrifice, the law of the fall, the law of the old covenant, the law of circumcision that Paul said was done away with). This version, perversely, equates all moral injunctions of the New Testament, with those of the Mosaic Covenant: as unnecessary with Christ. I see proponents of this say, for instance, that fornication is no longer a big deal, so long as you have faith. And whether or not your faith engenders works is irrelevant.

The second versions seems Satanic to me. Doing away with circumcision and eating Kosher, doesn't mean doing away with morality altogether. It means morality is no longer in an eye-for-an-eye, sacrificial framework, but rather in the framework of God's grace making it possible for you to become his vessel and through His Spirit's guidance do good works. But you actually have to submit yourself to the Holy Spirit; if you just ignore Him and continue to disregard His grace, that's not Christian at all. Yes, we are all sinners, but that is precisely why we must be contrite, mournful, in great sorrow over our sins, like the Publican who beat his breast, like the woman who washed Christ's feet with her tears; just saying, "Yessirree, I sure do sin," there's something wrong with that. There is no contrition in that at all.

There are many (far too many, really) Antinomians in this world. My sister-in-law is decidedly in that camp. Anitmonianism is not limited to any particular branch of Christianity, unfortunately.

Your first definition is the one which I hold to and to which most serious Protestants I know believe.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

There are many (far too many, really) Antinomians in this world. My sister-in-law is decidedly in that camp. Anitmonianism is not limited to any particular branch of Christianity, unfortunately.

Your first definition is the one which I hold to and to which most serious Protestants I know believe.

I don't really approve of the term "antinomian", because it also falls into equating the injunctions of the NT with the Law. It refers to what I'm referring to, but I just don't like the term, because Christianity is innately antinomian, just not in that sense.

 

[Halbhh]

Salvation through faith alone, a defining doctrine of Protestantism. But it's not really one doctrine, since it seems to be understood in multiple ways. Broadly, I see two versions of it here. The first one is not really objectionable, it is simply this: you are saved solely through faith, salvation being a gift and not something you can earn or be worthy of; however, if your faith does not engender works, it is a "dead faith", not a living faith. Because if you were filled with true faith, works would grow (super)naturally from that (Matthew 7:18).

Then there is this other version of the doctrine, which identifies all works as "works of the law" (that is, the law of life and death, the law of sacrifice, the law of the fall, the law of the old covenant, the law of circumcision that Paul said was done away with). This version, perversely, equates all moral injunctions of the New Testament, with those of the Mosaic Covenant: as unnecessary with Christ. I see proponents of this say, for instance, that fornication is no longer a big deal, so long as you have faith. And whether or not your faith engenders works is irrelevant.

The second versions seems Satanic to me. Doing away with circumcision and eating Kosher, doesn't mean doing away with morality altogether. It means morality is no longer in an eye-for-an-eye, sacrificial framework, but rather in the framework of God's grace making it possible for you to become his vessel and through His Spirit's guidance do good works. But you actually have to submit yourself to the Holy Spirit; if you just ignore Him and continue to disregard His grace, that's not Christian at all. Yes, we are all sinners, but that is precisely why we must be contrite, mournful, in great sorrow over our sins, like the Publican who beat his breast, like the woman who washed Christ's feet with her tears; just saying, "Yessirree, I sure do sin," there's something wrong with that. There is no contrition in that at all.

Glad you wrote this, and now I don't have to, because it is well written, and I can link to it as needed.

This is more important than most things we ever discuss, because this faulty version of the grace doctrine -- this notion of grace without following Christ, without even a repenting when we don't keep His commands -- has spread into popularity in the last few years, and seems a trick of the enemy. Its like polio made a comeback and became an epidemic.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The second versions seems Satanic to me.

Me too, yet people teach it. It/they even condemn those who try to do right or good as trying to be saved by the law.

The second is from Satan, and gives people just what they want. It's a deception but a deception they choose to believe, so it's not so much anyone is being tricked. I've seen it adversely affect how some live, and as I've said several times here, I'd be frightened to even teach it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Its like polio made a comeback and became an epidemic.

Yes, and even more deadly. Polio, at worse, can take our mortal lives, this can take away life eternal.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't really approve of the term "antinomian", because it also falls into equating the injunctions of the NT with the Law. It refers to what I'm referring to, but I just don't like the term, because Christianity is innately antinomian, just not in that sense.

This is true and I also have struggled with the term. I don't a better word for this false doctrine, unfortunately. Can you help me out?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

This is true and I also have struggled with the term. I don't a better word for this false doctrine, unfortunately. Can you help me out?

It's a pretty old heresy since it is mentioned several times in the NT, and is dealt with most especially by James, but I don't think there has ever been a precise word for it. Its contemporary form, however, is relatively recent, and we haven't really had to deal with it, and so never bothered having a specific term; hopefully we will never have to.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's a pretty old heresy since it is mentioned several times in the NT, and is dealt with most especially by James, but I don't think there has ever been a precise word for it. Its contemporary form, however, is relatively recent, and we haven't really had to deal with it, and so never bothered having a specific term; hopefully we will never have to.

I agree.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Salvation through faith alone, a defining doctrine of Protestantism. But it's not really one doctrine, since it seems to be understood in multiple ways. Broadly, I see two versions of it here. The first one is not really objectionable, it is simply this: you are saved solely through faith, salvation being a gift and not something you can earn or be worthy of; however, if your faith does not engender works, it is a "dead faith", not a living faith. Because if you were filled with true faith, works would grow (super)naturally from that (Matthew 7:18).

Then there is this other version of the doctrine, which identifies all works as "works of the law" (that is, the law of life and death, the law of sacrifice, the law of the fall, the law of the old covenant, the law of circumcision that Paul said was done away with). This version, perversely, equates all moral injunctions of the New Testament, with those of the Mosaic Covenant: as unnecessary with Christ. I see proponents of this say, for instance, that fornication is no longer a big deal, so long as you have faith. And whether or not your faith engenders works is irrelevant.

The second versions seems Satanic to me. Doing away with circumcision and eating Kosher, doesn't mean doing away with morality altogether. It means morality is no longer in an eye-for-an-eye, sacrificial framework, but rather in the framework of God's grace making it possible for you to become his vessel and through His Spirit's guidance do good works. But you actually have to submit yourself to the Holy Spirit; if you just ignore Him and continue to disregard His grace, that's not Christian at all. Yes, we are all sinners, but that is precisely why we must be contrite, mournful, in great sorrow over our sins, like the Publican who beat his breast, like the woman who washed Christ's feet with her tears; just saying, "Yessirree, I sure do sin," there's something wrong with that. There is no contrition in that at all.

I am a hybrid of the first point you make. Hard to explain really but I see no disconnect at all from faith and works. A person cannot be saved if their faith is not evidenced by works. So a person may well say I have faith, but until they do something about that proclamation of faith, it is useless. The working of faith is what gives faith life. This is why the Apostles and early church baptized new converts immediately or as soon as they could.

 

[zippy2006]

Salvation through faith alone, a defining doctrine of Protestantism...

On a related note:

Some Protestants seem to think that if works are stressed in any way, then Christians will become confused and think they are earning their salvation.

All Christians agree that the Christian life will produce good works, but a central question concerns how these good works will come about. Catholics aren't bashful in saying that good works ought to be done. "If you are a Christian, then you ought to do good works." It wouldn't be uncommon for a priest to preach in the form of such a moral imperative. Protestants, on the other hand, are very wary of moral imperatives and claiming that good works ought to be done. They might say, "If you are a Christian, then you will do good works."

But at this point I would want to ask the Protestant how the good works will come about. Will the Spirit effortlessly work them in us without us even noticing it or trying to do them? Or will we have to recognize their importance, that they ought to be done, and then set about doing them? I think the clear answer is the latter. We aren't trees. Fruit doesn't just happen. We are humans, and therefore we think, plan, prioritize, and deliberate before acting. If good works are to truly come from humans then they need to be proposed as things we ought to do. If we don't try to do good works we won't do any good works.

 

[Albion]

On a related note:

Some Protestants seem to think that if works are stressed in any way, then Christians will become confused and think they are earning their salvation.

You're going to have to do some high level "proving" in order to sustain that argument. There are plenty of Protestant churches that are Sola Fide bodies and still emphasize charitable action...and do a lot of it themselves.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I am a hybrid of the first point you make. Hard to explain really but I see no disconnect at all from faith and works. A person cannot be saved if their faith is not evidenced by works. So a person may well say I have faith, but until they do something about that proclamation of faith, it is useless. The working of faith is what gives faith life. This is why the Apostles and early church baptized new converts immediately or as soon as they could.

They baptized Jewish converts quickly (such as the Ethiopian) because it wasn't really a big leap for them. For pagans who had zero idea who YHWH and Abraham were, they generally took a lot longer to teaching them the Christian worldview, unless they had to establish a core part of a church very quickly. If you weren't born into the covenant, it was often years before you would be approved for baptism.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

On a related note:

Some Protestants seem to think that if works are stressed in any way, then Christians will become confused and think they are earning their salvation.

All Christians agree that the Christian life will produce good works, but a central question concerns how these good works will come about. Catholics aren't bashful in saying that good works ought to be done. "If you are a Christian, then you ought to do good works." It wouldn't be uncommon for a priest to preach in the form of such a moral imperative. Protestants, on the other hand, are very wary of moral imperatives and claiming that good works ought to be done. They might say, "If you are a Christian, then you will do good works."

But at this point I would want to ask the Protestant how the good works will come about. Will the Spirit effortlessly work them in us without us even noticing it or trying to do them? Or will we have to recognize their importance, that they ought to be done, and then set about doing them? I think the clear answer is the latter. We aren't trees. Fruit doesn't just happen. We are humans, and therefore we think, plan, prioritize, and deliberate before acting. If good works are to truly come from humans then they need to be proposed as things we ought to do. If we don't try to do good works we won't do any good works.

Catholics kind of compromised their position when they said you could literally buy the "supererogation" of saints to compensate for your lack of works, and even going to far as to sell certificates for it as a way to get out fasting during Lent. Commodification of works for the sake of salvation, is indeed at fundamental odds with the Gospel and Christ's conception of works.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

They baptized Jewish converts quickly (such as the Ethiopian) because it wasn't really a big leap for them. For pagans who had zero idea who YHWH and Abraham were, they generally took a lot longer to teaching them the Christian worldview, unless they had to establish a core part of a church very quickly. If you weren't born into the covenant, it was often years before you would be approved for baptism.

That's not true... the Centurion in Acts 10 was baptized immediately, the Philippians jailer was also baptized immediately. In fact he was baptized at midnight!

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

That's not true... the Centurion in Acts 10 was baptized immediately, the Philippians jailer was also baptized immediately. In fact he was baptized at midnight!

The Centurion was indicated to be a religious monotheist, so his circumstance is a bit different from most pagans. I'd also argue the jailer's circumstance was exceptional, because he immediately saw the sole truth of Christianity and was ready to accept everything told to him. Also all that was in Israel, and the Romans there would have a much better idea of the Jewish religion.

In conventional pagan cases, people could easily fall to incorporating Christ into a pantheon or some other form of syncretism. It's clear from Paul's epistles that slipping back into pagan morality was also a major issue.

 

[bbbbbbb]

On a related note:

Some Protestants seem to think that if works are stressed in any way, then Christians will become confused and think they are earning their salvation.

All Christians agree that the Christian life will produce good works, but a central question concerns how these good works will come about. Catholics aren't bashful in saying that good works ought to be done. "If you are a Christian, then you ought to do good works." It wouldn't be uncommon for a priest to preach in the form of such a moral imperative. Protestants, on the other hand, are very wary of moral imperatives and claiming that good works ought to be done. They might say, "If you are a Christian, then you will do good works."

But at this point I would want to ask the Protestant how the good works will come about. Will the Spirit effortlessly work them in us without us even noticing it or trying to do them? Or will we have to recognize their importance, that they ought to be done, and then set about doing them? I think the clear answer is the latter. We aren't trees. Fruit doesn't just happen. We are humans, and therefore we think, plan, prioritize, and deliberate before acting. If good works are to truly come from humans then they need to be proposed as things we ought to do. If we don't try to do good works we won't do any good works.

Catholics are synergistic in their soteriology - one must cooperate with God's grace in order to be saved. It is insufficient to merely have faith. One must obey a long list of Catholic commandments in order to hope for salvation,

Most Protestants follow Augustine's monergisim in their soteriology. Salvation is a gift of God to those whom He chooses to give it. It is the work of God from beginning to end. God produces good works in his children as evidence of their faith. He is the vinedresser and Christians are His vine.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Centurion was indicated to be a religious monotheist, so his circumstance is a bit different from most pagans. I'd also argue the jailer's circumstance was exceptional, because he immediately saw the sole truth of Christianity and was ready to accept everything told to him. Also all that was in Israel, and the Romans there would have a much better idea of the Jewish religion.

In conventional pagan cases, people could easily fall to incorporating Christ into a pantheon or some other form of syncretism. It's clear from Paul's epistles that slipping back into pagan morality was also a major issue.

That is quite true. Some denominations seem to thrive on syncretism in an effort to claim converts. There is much more to being a Christian than merely repeating a prayer or doing some religious one-time action.