Sola Fide

[Cecilia]

Hey everyone! I'm curious about the Protestant slogan of "Sola Fide". Is it still applicable in the church today? A Presbyterian minister once told me that faith without works is dead (which is completely true) but how does that comply with Sola Fide? And what about the biblical references of James 2:24, James 2:20, Romans 4, and Matthew 25:31-46? I'm not about starting a debate or anything, I'm just curious. Thanks!

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

I believe that no amount of works or action performed by anyone can earn them salvation. It is faith first which allows good works, and the good works are merely a natural extension of faith -- are good fruit, if you will.

 

[St. Worm2]

Hey everyone! I'm curious about the Protestant slogan of "Sola Fide". Is it still applicable in the church today?

Hi Cecilia, to answer your first question, yes, Sola Fide remains "the article by which the Church stands or falls". We are saved by Grace alone, through Faith alone, "NOT as a result of works" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

A Presbyterian minister once told me that faith without works is dead (which is completely true) but how does that comply with Sola Fide?

The first thing for you to understand is that the Reformed faith (or the Protestant faith in general for that matter) completely agrees with both you and the Presbyterian minister you spoke with (and the Bible, of course .. ) "faith w/o works is dead"! But Sola Fide isn't about some sort of faith that's void of works, it simply means that "works", which are the natural end-product (if you will) of saving faith, don't in anyway contribute to or merit salvation for us. IOW, it's not our works that save us! Only Christ's "works" are capable of doing that!!

Now, for the flip side of the (sola fide) coin, we can simply answer the question posed in James 2:14,

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?

The Protestant answer is, of course, NO! The kind of faith that "saves" will necessarily result in works, or it should not be considered 'saving' faith. In fact, James himself answers his own question quite nicely for us in v24. Again, v14 says, "if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" James' answer to that question is "no", because "a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone". Works are the proof that a man's faith claim is valid, both to himself AND to others.

And what about the biblical references of James 2:24, James 2:20, Romans 4, and Matthew 25:31-46? I'm not about starting a debate or anything, I'm just curious. Thanks!

I think I have covered James 2:20 and 24 above, and Matthew 25 is like them. "Goats" are those who say they have faith, but they never acted upon it, thus invalidating their claim. Saving faith results in works as is evidenced by the actions of the "sheep".

As for Romans 4, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. This entire chapter is about justification by faith apart from works, is it not? For instance, v5 says:

"to the one who does not work, but believes ... his faith is credited as righteousness"

Perhaps you could be a little more specific?

I hope this is what you were after. If not, let me know and I'll try again.

Yours and His,
David

 

[Cecilia]

"Sola Fide" though, directly translated, means "Faith Alone". It doesn't say "Works done by faith" or "Faithful works", in fact, it says nothing about works. If this concept is so important...why didn't Luther include it in the 5 slogans?

Also, the book of James is very much about how faith and works go hand-in-hand. What confuses me is that Luther tried to have this book removed from the Bible along with Revealations and for a short time, Hebrews. Why would he remove books (specially James) that are very important in learning that faith without works is dead if he too considered the doctrine very important?

Thanks again for your help!

 

[Tertiumquid]

"Sola Fide" though, directly translated, means "Faith Alone". It doesn't say "Works done by faith" or "Faithful works", in fact, it says nothing about works. If this concept is so important...why didn't Luther include it in the 5 slogans?

Hi Cecilia,

Great questions!

Indeed, Justification by faith alone was central to Luther's theology, and to Bible-believing Protestants. Luther's writings are filled with it. Scholars from both Protestant and Catholic persuassions recognize this.

James describes what a real true faith in Christ is: a real saving faith is a living faith. If no works are found in a person, chances are, that faith is a dead faith (c.f.James 2:17). James then describes a true example of dead faith: the faith of a demon. A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose from the dead- I would dare say a demon knows theology better than you or I. But is the faith of this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not. It is a dead faith- It never proves its life by God-pleasing actions.

Luther understood this as well. ‘Faith,’ he wrote, ‘is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith’.”

Luther-expert Paul Althaus agrees: “[Luther] also agrees with James that if no works follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and self-fabricated faith.”

Also, the book of James is very much about how faith and works go hand-in-hand. What confuses me is that Luther tried to have this book removed from the Bible along with Revealations and for a short time, Hebrews. Why would he remove books (specially James) that are very important in learning that faith without works is dead if he too considered the doctrine very important?

Understanding Luther on this issue demands approaching him from two perspectives:

1. Luther’s perspective on the canon as a sixteenth century Biblical theologian

2. Luther’s personal criterion of canonicity expressed in his theology


Roman Catholics tend to disregard #1. But in the 16th Century, the canon was a debated issue among both Catholic and protestant theologians.

It is a historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books.

I did an entire overview of Luther and the canon found here:

http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

This should answer any question you may have on Luther and the canon. If you have any particular question, i'll try to help the best I can.

The quick answer of why Luther questioned the authenticity of James, was because he didn't think it was written by an apostle, but rather by someone that came later. For Luther, because it was written by a later non-biblical author, Luther felt that James really was teaching that faith + works=salvation. Luther never arrived at a harmonizing solution, which I believe is quite clear from the text of James (as I discussed above). Had Luther been convinced that James was a true apostle, it would have forced him to really look closely at the text. I think the historical problems of the book kept him from doing this. In my link above, you can read exactly what Luther felt about James.

Take Care,
James Swan

 

[St. Worm2]

"Sola Fide" though, directly translated, means "Faith Alone". It doesn't say "Works done by faith" or "Faithful works", in fact, it says nothing about works. If this concept is so important...why didn't Luther include it in the 5 slogans?

Also, the book of James is very much about how faith and works go hand-in-hand. What confuses me is that Luther tried to have this book removed from the Bible along with Revealations and for a short time, Hebrews. Why would he remove books (specially James) that are very important in learning that faith without works is dead if he too considered the doctrine very important?

Thanks again for your help!

Hi Cecilia, it looks like James has given you a great link and plenty of information to clear up the oft referred to 'problem' with Luther and some of the Canonical books. I'd like to continue with you a little further down the faith/works line though, but first, I wonder if you could help me understand what you mean by the "5 Slogans"? There are two possibilities I can think of, the first would be what we call the 5 Great Solas of the Refomation. They are:

1. Sola Gratia
2. Sola Scriptura
3. Sola Fide
4. Solus Christus
5. Soli Deo Gloria

And the second set of "5" I can think of we call the "Doctrines of Grace". They are best known by the acronym, TULIP.

T - Total Depravity
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perserveranve of the Saints

Are one of these groupings of "5" the '5 slogans' to which you refer?

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - here is a famous little quote I thought you might like to read.

“We are justified by faith alone, but the faith which justifies is never alone” John Calvin​

 

[Tertiumquid]

Hi Cecilia, it looks like James has given you a great link and plenty of information to clear up the oft referred to problem with Luther and some of the Canonical books. I'd like to continue with you a little further down the faith/works line though, but first I wonder if you could help me understand what you mean by the "5 Slogans"? There are two possibilities I can think of, the first would be what we call the 5 great solas of the Refomation. They are:

1. Sola Gratia
2. Sola Scriptura
3. Sola Fide
4. Solus Christus
5. Soli Deo Gloria

Hi-

From my reading of Cecilia's comments, i took her to mean the 5 solas (as you mentioned. She originally asked,

"Sola Fide" though, directly translated, means "Faith Alone". It doesn't say "Works done by faith" or "Faithful works", in fact, it says nothing about works. If this concept is so important...why didn't Luther include it in the 5 slogans?"

I think Cecilia is asking why "Works done by faith" is not included as a 6th sola. In other words, why don't the solas include a "sola" on sanctification? It's a great question, i'm pressed for time now and don't have the time to answer.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[St. Worm2]

Hi-

From my reading of Cecilia's comments, i took her to mean the 5 solas (as you mentioned. She originally asked,

"Sola Fide" though, directly translated, means "Faith Alone". It doesn't say "Works done by faith" or "Faithful works", in fact, it says nothing about works. If this concept is so important...why didn't Luther include it in the 5 slogans?"

I think Cecilia is asking why "Works done by faith" is not included as a 6th sola. In other words, why don't the solas include a "sola" on sanctification? It's a great question, i'm pressed for time now and don't have the time to answer.

Regards,
James Swan

Thanks James ..

 

[orthedoxy]

I have a question if one has to believe to be saved then wouldn't that mean salvation is our doing?
If it's his work but we need to do something then how is that any different then God gives the good works but one need to walk in them to be saved?

 

[Jon_]

I have a question if one has to believe to be saved then wouldn't that mean salvation is our doing?
If it's his work but we need to do something then how is that any different then God gives the good works but one need to walk in them to be saved?

Faith is an effect of regeneration. We are justified by faith in that the Lord effects it upon us unto salvation, as we are incapable of faith in our natural state. The cause of our faith is God, which is what justifies it as wholly righteous. If we were to attempt to cause faith in our natural state, it would be wholly unrighteous as we are totally depraved prior to regeneration. Unto this end, any soteriological system that is not orthodox Calvinism fails to uphold the doctrine of sola fide. And any soteriological system that fails to uphold sola fide teaches another Gospel.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[orthedoxy]

Faith is an effect of regeneration. We are justified by faith in that the Lord effects it upon us unto salvation, as we are incapable of faith in our natural state. The cause of our faith is God, which is what justifies it as wholly righteous. If we were to attempt to cause faith in our natural state, it would be wholly unrighteous as we are totally depraved prior to regeneration. Unto this end, any soteriological system that is not orthodox Calvinism fails to uphold the doctrine of sola fide. And any soteriological system that fails to uphold sola fide teaches another Gospel.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Even though faith is an effect we still are saved bassed on something that we do.Our good Works is an effect as well don't you think?
I would have to disagree with you in regard sola fide being orthodox teaching.

 

[Jon_]

Even though faith is an effect we still are saved bassed on something that we do.Our good Works is an effect as well don't you think?

No. Works are an effect of true faith. (I realize that you also said this, but your meaning differs from mine. That is, we are not saved based on anything that we do.)

I would have to disagree with you in regard sola fide being orthodox teaching.

Orthodox Calvinist (meaning, five-point Calvinism) teaching. I agree that Eastern Orthodoxy (and its many varieties) does not teach sola fide.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[orthedoxy]

No. Works are an effect of true faith. (I realize that you also said this, but your meaning differs from mine. That is, we are not saved based on anything that we do.)


Orthodox Calvinist (meaning, five-point Calvinism) teaching. I agree that Eastern Orthodoxy (and its many varieties) does not teach sola fide.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

God is the cause of our good works right?
Do you believe one have to believe to be saved? If so then isn't that something you are doing? The bible says you believe and you will be saved. The bible never says God is doing the believing.even if you are saying God is the first cause but it's still you have to do something inorder to be saved.
The same way God is the first cause of works but still you do the work, therfore i don't see the problem.

 

[Jon_]

God is the cause of our good works right?

Yes.

Do you believe one have to believe to be saved?

Yes.

If so then isn't that something you are doing?

Sure.

The bible says you believe and you will be saved. The bible never says God is doing the believing.even if you are saying God is the first cause but it's still you have to do something inorder to be saved.

That's correct; however, natural man will never believe in God apart from regeneration by the Holy Spirit. So God's work is required for men to believe and to have a personal relationship with God.

The same way God is the first cause of works but still you do the work, therfore i don't see the problem.

That you don't see the problem shows a fundamental flaw in your soteriological system.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[James1979]

There is nothing required on our part. God has to put us under the hearing of his word(if we are raised in church or God uses an indiviual to share the gospel with someone and God can save that way.) and quicken us by his word and give us the ability to believe. So all in all, God does the whole work of salvation.

 

[orthedoxy]

There is nothing required on our part. God has to put us under the hearing of his word(if we are raised in church or God uses an indiviual to share the gospel with someone and God can save that way.) and quicken us by his word and give us the ability to believe. So all in all, God does the whole work of salvation.

Who does the believing if it's us then how can you say God does the whole work of salvation?

I have a question do reformers believe one is saved before one believes?

 

[Jon_]

I have a question do reformers believe one is saved before one believes?

This is a flawed question. It assumes that salvation is in someway a chronologically definable event--that it happens within the constraints of time. The elect are eternally saved because God has predestinated them prior to time (prior to the creation of the world). His elect were saved before he even created them. They were saved before he even ordained that his Son should save them (supralapsarianism, which I have recently accepted). To ask when is an elect saved? is to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the doctrine of election.

When we receive our faith, then we know that we are elect. Prior to that we do not know it, in fact, we would refuse to believe it. For instance, hypothetically, if somehow you could know that someone was elect (which you could not), then you might tell them so; however, in their totally depraved state, their heart of wickedness would scoff at this assertion declaring, "I will never believe in your God." After regeneration and receiving the gift of faith, the person would then know that it was true--that they were among the elect.

But it is simply inaccurate to say that one is not elect prior to faith. And it is further redundant to say that the elect are only those who believe because this is precisely the definition of elect (because faith is a necessary condition of election).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[UMP]

Hey everyone! I'm curious about the Protestant slogan of "Sola Fide". Is it still applicable in the church today? A Presbyterian minister once told me that faith without works is dead (which is completely true) but how does that comply with Sola Fide? And what about the biblical references of James 2:24, James 2:20, Romans 4, and Matthew 25:31-46? I'm not about starting a debate or anything, I'm just curious. Thanks!

Think of it this way.
Only Apple trees go to "heaven." Do real apple trees produce figs?
If an apple tree is indeed an apple tree, what will it produce?
Apples !
Why? Because it's an apple tree !!
In other words, Faith without works is NO Faith at all or else it would produce works.

Apple trees don't all produce the same amount of fruit, some more than others. However, no real apple tree produced ANY fruit OTHER than apples, to some degree, more than zero.

Now I'm confused

 

[orthedoxy]

This is a flawed question. It assumes that salvation is in someway a chronologically definable event--that it happens within the constraints of time. The elect are eternally saved because God has predestinated them prior to time (prior to the creation of the world). His elect were saved before he even created them. They were saved before he even ordained that his Son should save them (supralapsarianism, which I have recently accepted). To ask when is an elect saved? is to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the doctrine of election.

When we receive our faith, then we know that we are elect. Prior to that we do not know it, in fact, we would refuse to believe it. For instance, hypothetically, if somehow you could know that someone was elect (which you could not), then you might tell them so; however, in their totally depraved state, their heart of wickedness would scoff at this assertion declaring, "I will never believe in your God." After regeneration and receiving the gift of faith, the person would then know that it was true--that they were among the elect.

But it is simply inaccurate to say that one is not elect prior to faith. And it is further redundant to say that the elect are only those who believe because this is precisely the definition of elect (because faith is a necessary condition of election).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

That doesn't sound like you believe in sola fide.
Sola Fide means faith alone is required for salvation. According to you one is saved prier to faith.
If faith is only the evidence of salvation wouldn’t you say faith and works is evidence that you are saved?
I don’t think your theology is supported by the bible. The bible says believe and you will be saved, also it says he saved us before the foundation the only logical conclusion I could come up with is that God saved us according to his foreknowledge ( knowing what we would choose).

UMP
Some apple trees don’t produce any fruit does that make it not an apple tree? Some apple trees produce bad fruit. The same with Christians even the Jews were elected by God but because they produced bad fruits they were cut off.

 

[Tertiumquid]

This is a flawed question. It assumes that salvation is in someway a chronologically definable event--

Thus speaketh St. Sproul (AD 1997):

"Remember that in Reformed theology’s ordo salutis, regeneration precedes faith. It does so with respect to logical priority, not temporal priority. Reformed theology grants that God’s act of regeneration and the believer’s act of faith are simultaneous, not separated, with respect to time. The ordo salutis refers to logical dependency. Faith logically depends on regeneration; regeneration does not logically depend on faith. Again, the priority is logical, not temporal. Regeneration is the necessary condition of faith; faith is not the necessary condition of or for regeneration.

The logical priority of regeneration in Reformed theology rests on the doctrine of total depravity or moral inability. Because fallen man is morally unable to incline himself by faith to Christ, regeneration is a logical necessity for faith to occur. If we were to posit that faith precedes regeneration, then we would be assuming that unregenerate people, while still in an unregenerate state, have the moral ability to exercise faith. If the unregenerate can exercise faith, then it follows clearly that they are not fallen to the degree of moral inability, as claimed by classical Augustinian and Reformed theology. This would involve an Arminian or semi-Pelagian view of the fall."
http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=17439173#_ftn1http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=17439173#_ftnref1
Source: Sproul, R.C. Willing to believe : The controversy over free will Grand Rapids: Baker Books 193-194.

BTW Jon you did a great job on your answer. I recall debating this point on-line with a Calvinst-detractor many years back now. In the end, the answer really didn't matter. This is a repeated problem I find in internet-apologetics: answers are given, but significant refutations are lacking. Most often, detractors simply re-state their point. What the non-Reformed folks must do, is cogently pull apart the arguments and use the Bible. Only then will a Calvinist take the counter-response seriously.

James Swan