Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[fhansen]

Depends on if it's the sole rule of faith, or the final. Certainly there must be some trust in a literal reading of the text but it need not be free from thorny issues that require appeals to a historic faith. Which is really the issue, sola scriptura was a rejection of an ecclesial authority over Scripture not of the existence of an authoritative and normative tradition.

And yet some one or some church must determine which historic truths apply and how to apply them.

 

[Fervent]

And yet some one or some church must determine which historic truths apply and how to apply them.

I'm not sure what your point is with this.

 

[fhansen]

I'm not sure what your point is with this.

Well, it always gets back to the same thing. Someone must interpret, whether it's scripture or tradition. Someone must play an authoritative role in other words.

 

[Fervent]

Well, it always gets back to the same thing. Someone must interpret, whether it's scripture or tradition. Someone must play an authoritative role in other words.

When education is readily available, it seems to me dereliction to put the onus of interpretation onto anyone but oneself. The real issue is one church claims that the laity are incapable of having a truly personal relationship with God and can only do so through the mediation of a class of presbyters. I see no use for such mediation.

 

[rturner76]

What do you think?

I think what the Bible (Scriptura) says:
Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

 

[fhansen]

When education is readily available, it seems to me dereliction to put the onus of interpretation onto anyone but oneself. The real issue is one church claims that the laity are incapable of having a truly personal relationship with God and can only do so through the mediation of a class of presbyters. I see no use for such mediation.

For the majority of centuries since the advent of Christ most believers have been illiterate. The sacramental system worked quite well by providing a simple structure for understanding the theology by which we relate to God and work out our salvation with Him. And those who wanted to draw nearer yet, did so, based on the catechesis they had received. The best catechesis in any case prompts people to go beyond a mere mechanical practice of the faith. And admittedly that hasn't always been done well.

And education doesn't guarantee understanding on these matters, which is why equally erudite scholars disagree on the meaning of scripture all day long.

 

[Fervent]

For the majority of centuries since the advent of Christ most believers have been illiterate. The sacramental system worked quite well by providing a simple structure for understanding the theology by which we relate to God and work out our salvation with Him. And those who wanted to draw nearer yet, did so, based on the catechesis they had received. The best catechesis in any case prompts people to go beyond a mere mechanical practice of the faith. And admittedly that hasn't always been done well.

The majority of centuries doesn't reflect on the current situation. A previous necessity need not be enshrined for all times and all places.

And education doesn't guarantee understanding on these matters, which is why equally erudite scholars disagree on the meaning of scripture all day long.

Each gives their own account, certainly there will remain things that are disputable. But that doesn't give cause to stratify the body of Christ into a clerical class and a lay class.

 

[fhansen]

The majority of centuries doesn't reflect on the current situation. A previous necessity need not be enshrined for all times and all places.

Each gives their own account, certainly there will remain things that are disputable. But that doesn't give cause to stratify the body of Christ into a clerical class and a lay class.

That's not the issue at hand. What we're talking about is whether or not a God- designated human authority is critical in maintaining a correct and unified body of beliefs. Scripture alone cannot ensure that by any means. The faith is something that was received, by the experience of direct revelation, and no amount of reading a book can make up for that as if we can now pick up writings regarding supernatural truths and God's will centuries after the fact and hope to always have full and correct understanding of it by hermeneutics alone, even while not discounting the value of bible studies.

In real life this plays itself out in many areas. For example, baptismal regeneration can be plausibly argued, for or against, going by the Bible alone. This is really a non issue if one believes baptism has nothing to do with soteriology to begin with. But the ancient churches always, simply, believed that it was a necessary part of entering God's family. There wasn't even a question or controversy because that's what they had received. And the fathers support that understanding virtually unanimously. Rejecting baptismal regeneration is tantamount to rejecting Tradition...and/or Scripture depending on ones interpretation of it.

But...Sola Scriptura amounts to or results in an exercise in questioning everything. Not a bad thing in itself except that Scripture, alone, cannot resolve the questions that arise when the Church's authority is thrown out the door which the radical reformers did right away and which seems to be an increasingly popular endeavor now, an inevitable one, in fact, once Scripture is viewed as the final authority.

If one truly values tradition at all, then how can tradition be completely subservient to scripture? While they cannot contradict each other, they don't always, necessarily, cover the same teachings.

 

[Fervent]

That's not the issue at hand. What we're talking about is whether or not a God- designated human authority is critical in maintaining a correct and unified body of beliefs. Scripture alone cannot ensure that by any means. The faith is something that was received, by the experience of direct revelation, and no amount of reading a book can make up for that as if we can now pick up writings regarding supernatural truths and God's will centuries after the fact and hope to always have full and correct understanding of it by hermeneutics alone, even while not discounting the value of bible studies.

God-designated? Hardly looks that way to me. After all, Christ said "call no man your father." And the conduct of the supposedly God-designated authorities speaks against their claim to be such.

In real life this plays itself out in many areas. For example, baptismal regeneration can be plausibly argued, for or against, going by the Bible alone. This is really a non issue if one believes baptism has nothing to do with soteriology to begin with. But the ancient churches always, simply, believed that it was a necessary part of entering God's family. There wasn't even a question or controversy because that's what they had received. And the fathers support that understanding virtually unanimously. Rejecting baptismal regeneration is tantamount to rejecting Tradition...and/or Scripture depending on ones interpretation of it.

Such trivia is hardly an issue so long as it doesn't affect praxis. Churches that don't believe in baptismal regeneration continue to baptize, so the disputes over what's happening in the heavenlies are hardly a major issue. Besides that, your objection is based on a misunderstanding of sola scriptura as an outright rejection of any authentic tradition when that is not how it was formulated. It is purely an issue of an illicit ecclesiology and clerical abuse that came about from that ecclesial authority.

But...Sola Scriptura amounts to or results in an exercise in questioning everything. Not a bad thing in itself except that Scripture, alone, cannot resolve the questions that arise when the Church's authority is thrown out the door which the radical reformers did right away and which seems to be an increasingly popular endeavor now, an inevitable one, in fact, once Scripture is viewed as the final authority.

That simply isn't true, any more than accepting an ecclesial authority means believing everything uncritically.

If one truly values tradition at all, then how can tradition be completely subservient to scripture? While they cannot contradict each other, they don't always, necessarily, cover the same teachings.

This is a good point, and perhaps a place we can find agreement. My defense of and acceptance of sola scriptura is only partial, because I do not believe we can neatly bifurcate Scripture and tradition. However, it is clear that the institutions that supposedly bear authority have been thorougly corrupt such that it is impossible for me to put my trust in any particular thread of tradition and instead take a maximalist view of the Christian tradition as a whole. So the various voices within that tradition past and present still hold authority, but ultimately I must make the best of what's available and trust the Holy Spirit as the sole source of truth. And the Holy Spirit lives imperfectly in me, as in any other member of the body of Christ so all authorities are partial and as the only authenticated and undiluted expression of apostolic authority the Scriptures ultimately have final say in matters of faith as best as I can understand them within that tradition.

 

[linux.poet]

There has never been a statement in the Bible of the form "if you get a message from God - you can go ahead and ignore it - if you guess that 500 years from now - no one else will be able to read that message because they will have lost access to it".

So there was never a point of confusion of that sort in any age.

I thought the point of Sola Scriptura was to distinguish revelation from God from lying visions given or inflicted by Satan. Luther and the Reformers believed that the Catholic Church had become rife with corruption, so they instituted Sola Scriptura to push back against the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now it is already in the world.

It's just a method to evaluate the Roman Catholic Church's teachings, whether they add up with the Scripture or not.

 

[BobRyan]

I thought the point of Sola Scriptura was to distinguish revelation from God from lying visions given or inflicted by Satan.

True - but as scripture shows there were many many prophets in the Bible that wrote no scripture at all, such as Agabus in the book of Acts and the prophetess Anna in the Temple at the presentation of Jesus by his parents.

In 1 Cor 14 we find that when they gathered "each one has a revelation".. and we find this --

1 Cor 14:1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.... 3 one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.

The NT is not at all "against" true prophets and visions even if they are not Bible writers.

And it condemns false teaching, lying visions etc as you point out.

The test is as we see in Mark 7:7-13 and in Acts 17:11 -- sola scriptura

Luther and the Reformers believed that the Catholic Church had become rife with corruption

But only because they found their own Catholic Church to be in violation of the doctrine found in scripture. None of them had "some other denomination" to join - they themselves were Catholic, raised to affirm and support the Catholic church.

details matter.

 

[linux.poet]

1 Cor 14:1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.... 3 one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.

The NT is not at all "against" true prophets and visions even if they are not Bible writers.

Yes, but if there is a prophecy or vision, it needs to be consistent with the information found in Scripture. Otherwise it's a false vision. We likely agree on that. It's basically an answer to the "how can you tell?" question. God does not give us a command to test the Spirits that we cannot accomplish.

But only because they found their own Catholic Church to be in violation of the doctrine found in scripture.

Exactly. The Roman Catholic church admits the Magisterium as an authority and places it on equal, if not greater, footing than the Scriptural canon. (The Orthodox church admits church history and patristics as an authority, but that is not at issue.) The Reformed denominations will admit no authority other than the Sovereign Word of God as a way to hold fallen, sinful, church leaders accountable.

Jesus and God are the same yesterday, today, and forever. Sola Scriptura is an authority for discernment and spirit testing, rather than making Scripture an absolute authority for every single thing. Scripture tells us what teachings and prophecies we should admit to our thinking. That is why the OP's argument is flawed.

For example, Christ himself quoted numerous Old Testament passages to show that his earthly ministry was consistent with those. By holding prophecy and teaching to the authority of Scripture, we are following the example of Christ.

 

[fhansen]

God-designated? Hardly looks that way to me. After all, Christ said "call no man your father." And the conduct of the supposedly God-designated authorities speaks against their claim to be such.

I'm a bit surprised at this coming from you as it amounts to non-scholarly tripe that Catholic-bashers have grasped at to find one more reason to protest Catholicism, as if the early church didn't bother to read the Bible or something. Do you think Jesus wants us to stop calling our earthly father, father? "Honor your male parent and your mother?" And the eastern churches, as well, practiced this usage, and continue to. And, incidentally, by far the majority of priests I've known have been humble people, viewing the title as a reference to their responsibility towards proper care of their flock.

In Phil 10 Paul tells us,
“I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment."
Or in 1 Cor 4:14-15:
"I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."

Stephen calls Abraham the father of all in Acts 7, a statement found in many places in the Bible including the gospels of Matt, Luke, John, the letter to the Romans, Hebrews, and elsewhere. Even John Calvin condoned this usage for men in the worldly manner.

In the same passage in Matt 23 Jesus says to call no man rabbi or teacher. He wanted to radically drive home who our true Father is, where our true home is, as well as who our true teacher is. I don't believe for a second from that one passage that He wanted us to stop using the terms from then on in the worldly sense, just for us to know the difference.

Such trivia is hardly an issue so long as it doesn't affect praxis. Churches that don't believe in baptismal regeneration continue to baptize, so the disputes over what's happening in the heavenlies are hardly a major issue. Besides that, your objection is based on a misunderstanding of sola scriptura as an outright rejection of any authentic tradition when that is not how it was formulated. It is purely an issue of an illicit ecclesiology and clerical abuse that came about from that ecclesial authority.

The requirements for salvation are hardly trivia as this all has to do with God's revealed will for man. And there were no disputes about it until sola scriptura adherents came along. And my objection is not that sola scriptura rejects tradition, only that it trumps tradition any time the individual interpreter/reader decides that it should, despite the fact that, in this case, scripture supports baptismal regeneration quite well and the church has always viewed the matter that way. Sola Scriptura simply opens the door to a variety of understandings of the faith-and who knows where praxis may ultimately end up as a consequence?

That simply isn't true, any more than accepting an ecclesial authority means believing everything uncritically.

Um, ya, it seems to be proving itself quite true in the Christian world.

This is a good point, and perhaps a place we can find agreement. My defense of and acceptance of sola scriptura is only partial, because I do not believe we can neatly bifurcate Scripture and tradition. However, it is clear that the institutions that supposedly bear authority have been thorougly corrupt such that it is impossible for me to put my trust in any particular thread of tradition and instead take a maximalist view of the Christian tradition as a whole.

While I may have agreed with you at one time, here's the problem I finally encountered. Luther said that the doctrine of justification was the real crux of the reformation, that which it stood or fell on. And he was right. But he was wrong with his formulation of the doctrine while the ancient churches are right, as also reflected by the patristics as well as in Scripture. When I hear an eastern speaker teach on salvation now I'm on familiar ground, solid, familiar ground. And when I study Catholic doctrine on this subject, including its history far back in time, I find the most balanced and fully articulated understanding of justification. Beginning from that basic, primary point of accuracy I then assess any and all other doctrines and objections.

 

[Fervent]

I'm a bit surprised at this coming from you as it amounts to non-scholarly tripe that Catholic-bashers have grasped at to find one more reason to protest Catholicism, as if the early church didn't bother to read the Bible or something. Do you think Jesus wants us to stop calling our earthly father, father? "Honor your male parent and your mother?" And the eastern churches, as well, practiced this usage, and continue to. And, incidentally, by far the majority of priests I've known have been humble people, viewing the title as a reference to their responsibility towards proper care of their flock.

I understand that it's often trotted out blindly as a denunciation of Catholic nomenclature, but my use was intended to be a bit more nuanced. What I am referring to in its use is not the phrasing or calling someone a father, but the underlying having an individual as a fatherly authority. As in, God has no grandchildren. The function of the clergy as intermediaries in a person's relationship with God in my mind goes against what Jesus was teaching when he said to call no man your father. It's certainly more than calling an earthly father father, or even calling a spiritual father father, but in the authority that a priest has over their congregation.

In Phil 10 Paul tells us,
“I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment."
Or in 1 Cor 4:14-15:
"I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."

Stephen calls Abraham the father of all in Acts 7, a statement found in many places in the Bible including the gospels of Matt, Luke, John, the letter to the Romans, Hebrews, and elsewhere. Even John Calvin condoned this usage for men in the worldly manner.

I understand where you're coming from with this, but my objection is not to nomenclature.

In the same passage in Matt 23 Jesus says to call no man rabbi or teacher. He wanted to radically drive home who our true Father is, where our true home is, as well as who our true teacher is. I don't believe for a second from that one passage that He wanted us to stop using the terms from then on in the worldly sense, just for us to know the difference.

The requirements for salvation are hardly trivia as this all has to do with God's revealed will for man. And there were no disputes about it until sola scriptura adherents came along. And my objection is not that sola scriptura rejects tradition, only that it trumps tradition any time the individual interpreter/reader decides that it should, despite the fact that, in this case, scripture supports baptismal regeneration quite well and the church has always viewed the matter that way. Sola Scriptura simply opens the door to a variety of understandings of the faith-and who knows where praxis may ultimately end up as a consequence?

It depends on what is meant by "requirements for salvation." If we mean the theories of what happens in the heavenlies, ordo saltulis, and the like then they are trivia and disputable matters so long as praxis doesn't change. If people are baptizing, it doesn't matter what they believe the baptism accomplishes because the Holy Spirit will use it regardless of their belief on the matter. Baptismal theology has always been something that has been disputed, which is where a lot of the traditional rulings have come from. The anathemas that are often trotted out as being against John Cassian, for example, were entirely related to false beliefs about baptismal regeneration.

Um, ya, it seems to be proving itself quite true in the Christian world.

People bucking authority is for reasons far beyond sola scriptura. It's rather absurd to look at the most extreme version and conclude that that is the ordinary course of things. It's simply not the case that things are as black and white as you seem to be thinking they are.

While I may have agreed with you at one time, here's the problem I finally encountered. Luther said that the doctrine of justification was the real crux of the reformation, that which it stood or fell on. And he was right. But he was wrong with his formulation of the doctrine while the ancient churches are right, as also reflected by the patristics as well as in Scripture. When I hear an eastern speaker teach on salvation now I'm on familiar ground, solid, familiar ground. And when I study Catholic doctrine on this subject, including its history far back in time, I find the most balanced and fully articulated understanding of justification. Beginning from that basic, primary point of accuracy I then assess any and all other doctrines and objections.

The doctrine of justification was certainly the focus of the Reformer's and their literature, but the real crux of the reformation was the doctrine of priesthood of all believers. The Reformers certainly got a lot wrong and overreached with their doctrine, and it was likely that the legal system of Germany and Switzerland had more to do with their understanding than the Biblical corpus. But their objections were largely on point, which can be seen in the fact that the Catholic church incorporated a lot of their criticisms into reform campaigns with both Trent and Vatican II. To look to justification as a hinge point of doctrine seems a bit myopic to me, but I can see why you would build around that.

 

[fhansen]

I understand where you're coming from with this, but my objection is not to nomenclature.

Fair enough. I'm not sure I can find any real distinction between Paul's usage and that for a priest, however.

It depends on what is meant by "requirements for salvation." If we mean the theories of what happens in the heavenlies, ordo saltulis, and the like then they are trivia and disputable matters so long as praxis doesn't change. If people are baptizing, it doesn't matter what they believe the baptism accomplishes because the Holy Spirit will use it regardless of their belief on the matter. Baptismal theology has always been something that has been disputed, which is where a lot of the traditional rulings have come from. The anathemas that are often trotted out as being against John Cassian, for example, were entirely related to false beliefs about baptismal regeneration.

IDK. I think Cassian, himself, had it right. Not sure about some of his followers tho.

People bucking authority is for reasons far beyond sola scriptura. It's rather absurd to look at the most extreme version and conclude that that is the ordinary course of things. It's simply not the case that things are as black and white as you seem to be thinking they are.

Well, that's sort of the point. Once Scripture became the authority, the interpreter of Scripture actually became the authority for all practical purposes.

The doctrine of justification was certainly the focus of the Reformer's and their literature, but the real crux of the reformation was the doctrine of priesthood of all believers. The Reformers certainly got a lot wrong and overreached with their doctrine, and it was likely that the legal system of Germany and Switzerland had more to do with their understanding than the Biblical corpus. But their objections were largely on point, which can be seen in the fact that the Catholic church incorporated a lot of their criticisms into reform campaigns with both Trent and Vatican II. To look to justification as a hinge point of doctrine seems a bit myopic to me, but I can see why you would build around that.

Well, that was Luther's point-and I don't know another good reason for splitting the church apart, which Luther helped do even if unintentionally. Trent anathematized a great many of the Reformers positions, and Vat II follows and quotes Trent often.

 

[Fervent]

Fair enough. I'm not sure I can find any real distinction between Paul's usage and that for a priest, however.

Paul's usage seems primarily about inspiring affection, and while priests may use it in a similar fashion at times its function tends to be to designate their status within a hierarchy of authority.

IDK. I think Cassian, himself, had it right. Not sure about some of his followers tho.

I do too, and you probably don't know what I'm referencing. Calvinists often trot out some condemnations of a small band of monks in Northern France that basically treated the waters of baptism as if they were magical.

Well, that's sort of the point. Once Scripture became the authority, the interpreter of Scripture actually became the authority for all practical purposes.

It seems there's far more to it than that to me, with the acceptance of sola scriptura being elaborated because people were already pushing back against an abusive authority.

Well, that was Luther's point-and I don't know another good reason for splitting the church apart, which Luther helped do even if unintentionally. Trent anathematized a great many of the Reformers positions, and Vat II follows and quotes Trent often.

The church split for political reasons far more than theological ones. The theological battles and polemics surrounding them were little more than window dressing for political revolts and power struggles, which is why cuius regio, eius religio was such a major part of the history. That's not to say there aren't significant differences, but sola fide well formulated is very similar to the historic view of salvation serving primarily as a rejection of scholastic penance theology that gave rise to abuses like illicit sales of indulgences. The reformation came about because "Christendom" had failed.

 

[fhansen]

The church split for political reasons far more than theological ones. The theological battles and polemics surrounding them were little more than window dressing for political revolts and power struggles, which is why cuius regio, eius religio was such a major part of the history. That's not to say there aren't significant differences, but sola fide well formulated is very similar to the historic view of salvation serving primarily as a rejection of scholastic penance theology that gave rise to abuses like illicit sales of indulgences. The reformation came about because "Christendom" had failed.

I don't think the church failed-as if the gates of hell had prevailed against it-except in failing to always teach the faith it possessed as well as it should, perhaps. And certainly leaders and others at times failed to heed, rather than to exploit, those same teachings, which was the case with the sale of indulgences. Historic teachings on justification always involved grace, first of all, with man being freely justified by it, but also the freedom of man to reject that grace, or to turn away from that justice at any time afterwards, or, alternatively, to embrace that grace and work out his salvation with it. Sola Fide, by nature, is difficult to pin down on the matter of the possibility and necessity of overcoming sin and doing good after justification in order to realize eternal life.

 

[Fervent]

I don't think the church failed-as if the gates of hell had prevailed against it-except in failing to always teach the faith it possessed as well as it should, perhaps. And certainly leaders and others at times failed to heed, rather than to exploit, those same teachings, which was the case with the sale of indulgences. Historic teachings on justification always involved grace, first of all, with man being freely justified by it, but also the freedom of man to reject that grace, or to turn away from that justice at any time afterwards, or, alternatively, to embrace that grace and work out his salvation with it. Sola Fide, by nature, is difficult to pin down on the matter of the possibility and necessity of overcoming sin and doing good after justification in order to realize eternal life.

The dividing line here is our understanding of what, exactly, "the church" is. Because I certainly don't suppose that the gates of hell prevailed against it, but that is not to say that the clergy was not thoroughly corrupt and worldly.

As for what sola fide is by nature, that seems to vary from person claiming it to person claiming it. Within the orthodoxy that developed from the reformers it was never treated as if it were a doctrine in a vacuum, so overcoming sin and doing good after justification was always treated as a part of the picture. It simply wasn't given merit for the one doing the good deeds, because the good that flows from justification is alien in the same way the justification itself is alien. Though here I'm speaking for a doctrine I don't agree with, because it is often mischaracterized by critics rather than letting those who espouse it define it for themselves.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

1 Cor 14:1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.... 3 one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.

The NT is not at all "against" true prophets and visions even if they are not Bible writers.

Yes, but if there is a prophecy or vision, it needs to be consistent with the information found in Scripture. Otherwise it's a false vision.

Agreed.

We likely agree on that. It's basically an answer to the "how can you tell?" question. God does not give us a command to test the Spirits that we cannot accomplish.

Agreed

Jesus and God are the same yesterday, today, and forever. Sola Scriptura is an authority for discernment and spirit testing, rather than making Scripture an absolute authority for every single thing. Scripture tells us what teachings and prophecies we should admit to our thinking. That is why the OP's argument is flawed.

True. The Bible does not say that only what is in the Bible is true. We have a lot of science fact available today that is true and is not in the Bible

For example, Christ himself quoted numerous Old Testament passages to show that his earthly ministry was consistent with those. By holding prophecy and teaching to the authority of Scripture, we are following the example of Christ.

exactly

 

[fhansen]

The dividing line here is our understanding of what, exactly, "the church" is. Because I certainly don't suppose that the gates of hell prevailed against it, but that is not to say that the clergy was not thoroughly corrupt and worldly.

That's a broad statement. I'm sure there were plenty of good and spiritual clergy, the best, whether clergy or laity, occasionally being recognized as saints due to their authentic godliness. There also were certainly a multitude of worldly ones. The church had, within a fragmented and politically divided Europe, continuously spoke against this corruption at least since the first Lateran councils, for many centuries IOW. But the mediaeval values were far from Christlike for many, where pomp and ceremony and benefices and nepotism and avarice, etc, instead ruled the day.

As for what sola fide is by nature, that seems to vary from person claiming it to person claiming it. Within the orthodoxy that developed from the reformers it was never treated as if it were a doctrine in a vacuum, so overcoming sin and doing good after justification was always treated as a part of the picture. It simply wasn't given merit for the one doing the good deeds, because the good that flows from justification is alien in the same way the justification itself is alien. Though here I'm speaking for a doctrine I don't agree with, because it is often mischaracterized by critics rather than letting those who espouse it define it for themselves.

The confusion with SF begins because with it man is said to be justified...without being justified. He's imputed or declared to be just IOW, and if this is the case then there would be no change, no reason or ability for him to be any better than he was beforehand. In the historic teachings, man is forgiven of sin, washed, cleansed, made a new creation, a child of God with the Holy Spirit now indwelling. He possesses a foreign righteousness (that comes from God on the basis of faith, Phil 3:9) but it's foreign only because he possesses none, in his fallen state, apart from God. Faith is the reestablishment of union with Him-and that union, itself, is the very essence of man's righteousness. And man's unrighteousness or sinfulness was originally foreign as well, as nothing or no one in creation was created to sin.

The point: man was created for communion with God; apart from Him man has no justice or righteousness. Man is lost and cannot find himself; for that God must reach down; grace is essential. But man willfully fell and to the extent possible, with the help of grace while not totally overwhelming us with it, God wants us to willfully rise, to say "yes" instead of "no", and to say "yes" daily and to confirm and strengthen that "yes" throughout our lives. Then, at the end, He judges how we've done with what He's given us. Again, we can always say "no", and turn and walk back away.

If justice is merely imputed instead of given, then there's no real justice to lose, and therefore no way to lose salvation.,.apparently? That's where the confusion and differing understandings of the outworkings of Sola Fide enters in, and that's why the church has historically taught that while man is freely justified, that justice is real, not vicarious, from God, and can be compromised and forfeited-by living unjustly, failing to remain in Him.