Why faith alone?

St_Worm2 said:

Hi WK, if you don't mind, let's just start with this. How can grace be a "symptom" of salvation? What do you mean by that? At best that seems backwards to me, but perhaps I am misunderstanding your meaning!?

Thanks!

Whoa, gotta go. I'll be back later today (Dv).

--David

Click to expand...

Let me rephrase that:

The above excerpt seems to say that works prove the presence of grace, that works are a symptom of salvation.

Previous to that I stated what works really are:

However some posts seem to infer that the works are clues of the reception of grace, through believing Jesus was Lord, the belief also being a gift, instead of being a proof of real loyalty.

1. Faith, belief that Jesus is Lord, is a gift.
2. This faith results in grace, power.
3. This power can be used, by stepping out in attempting and succeeding in doing good works.
4. These good works are not a sign of inherent righteousness of a believer.
5. The righteousness of a believer is already guaranteed through imputation.
6. The good works are assurance of a functional faith leading to the giving of grace. See, we struggled with good works before, now its like falling of a log!

If not the above, then what?

It seems that they don't think that works are PROOF of a genuine faith, loyalty. Works they also claim, could possibly be false fruit, not of the Holy Spirit, us trying to force ourselves to believe we actually are living out our mentally assented fact of Jesus indeed being Lord, instead of a natural outworking of that belief.


So what is my version?

1. Salvation by grace through faith is a gift.
2. This grace is a result of faith.
3. Good works are what prove our faith is deep.
4. Righteousness is actually reckoned/credited to a believer because of good works.
5. Assurance of salvation is by sight, not hope.

Lets tackle Point 1.

Salvation by grace through faith is a gift.

We must understand that Ephesians 2:8 was written to the Gentiles. A huge question loomed in all minds in the first church. Had God’s Word failed? Weren’t the Jews promised salvation through being Abraham’s seed? Were Abraham’s seed not identified by circumcision, one of the requirements, rituals of obedience, of Torah? How could Gentiles be Abraham’s seed?

Paul’s answer was that Abraham was saved by faith, before circumcision. Abraham was the precedent, the father, the prototype of all who would be saved by faith.


How was Abraham saved?

Abraham was saved by grace, a gift, through faith.

If Abraham was saved by circumcision (law, works) then he had something to boast, claim. Then his salvation would not be a gift, but a purchase or a wage. His status would of a worker who worked and bought his salvation through self effort. But since he never exerted any effort, what he received was free.


Now, the Gentiles were saved with the same salvation, not requiring works. And even that was a gift, free, undeserved.

Previously they were not included in the covenants, were without hope, made enemies because of the separation created by the requirements of conversion (circumcision and obedience to Torah).

Now they were (included). They never did anything, did not perform well in righteousness, because all people groups performed miserably.

I repeat:

EVEN THEIR INCLUSION WAS A GIFT.


Ephesians 2
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Quote
The problem with that exegesis of the verse is that this is a neuter pronoun and faith is a feminine noun. While a pronoun's case is determined by its function in the sentence, it gender and number are determined by its antecedent. Therefore, this cannot be referring back to faith. But grace also is feminine, so it cannot be the antecedent of τοῦτο. So what is?


If you looks backwards for an antecedent, you will look in vain. There are neuter nouns, but they make no sense as an antecedent.


The answer is to know a little Greek! When Greek wants to refer back to a general though, perhaps a phrase, the pronoun can be in the neuter. This is not of yourselves does not refer specifically to πίστεως but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part. It is the entire salvific process that is God's gracious gift and is not part of our own doing. It is a gift.


Antecedents and Faith (Eph 2:8-9) | billmounce.com


The entire process of salvation, of which faith is a part, is a gift.

Gentiles have been given salvation. What type of salvation?

Salvation by grace through faith.


I’ve just been given a warning that my beliefs are Pelagian and may lead to banning, following due process. So if I suddenly don’t show up, please excuse me for it.

zippy2006 said:

But how would the absence of sola fide count against the idea that salvation is by God alone? Why is "Salvation by God alone" supported more by justification by faith than justification by works?

Click to expand...

Our perception of what 'faith' is changes as we grow and change in the process of the journey of soul. Each has been given a measure of faith, but if not realized (truly aware) then no seeking God in spirit and in Truth begins. Faith is believing the promises of God and seeking them (from within). It is what causes us to set both eyes on Christ and grows/increases as "I" decreases... until HE bring us to ONE - singleness of eye, One in spirit and in Truth at the revelation that can only come by spirit, not our human understanding...all by faith...that we 'see' and hope for what God promises will come to pass and be our experiential reality...walking by the power of the same spirit that rose Jesus Christ's body from the grave. But first we have to believe it...it is that belief/faith that justifies and will cause us to truly KNOW (intimately) HE is God beyond a shadow of a doubt...not just say it with words, but in relationship.

Faith will cause an inner transformation (not of our own strength) and good fruit will be the proof/end result of that genuine faith. As James said, "Faith without works is dead." Faith promises to bring an end to the battle/duality within and set us truly free. None of that can come from 'self'-ish endeavor, but from God through faith...that HE IS God.

Wordkeeper said:

However some posts seem to infer that the works are clues of the reception of grace, through believing Jesus was Lord, the belief also being a gift, instead of being a proof of real loyalty.

Click to expand...

It is promised that IN Christ, we will be overcomers. Those are the 'works' (overcoming) that are the clues to reception of grace. Anything less is striving on our 'own' (perceiving of) Truth...which really isn't truth, but a lie.

zippy2006 said:

Sola fide is the Latin shorthand for the Protestant claim that we are justified by faith alone. In this thread I want to hear why Protestants think we are justified by faith alone, but I am not interested in scriptural justifications. You might try to answer this question, "Why did God enact the principle of justification by faith alone?" What is the reason for such a doctrine? Why might God have given it to us? How does it help you in your faith? What truths does it safeguard, etc.?

To cite an example, John Piper gives some rationale for sola fide in this video. One of his basic reasons is this: sola fide gives us an assurance and certainty that pave the way for good works. Without sola fide we would not produce any fruits, any good works.

If you like, you can give scriptural justification for your answer. For example, if you were John Piper you could give scriptural support for the idea that good works are necessary, or that sola fide gives us assurance and certainty. I'm just not interested in proof texts for the doctrine of sola fide itself.

Click to expand...

Adam's fall is due basically to 2 factors, 1) lacking faith in God (faith), 2) disobedience (law). Since then faith and law are fundamental elements of each and everything covenant. Faith is the one way God grants His Grace through Jesus Christ. As time goes by, it is expected that humankind will walk farther away from God, especially in our age. Say in 60s, nudity was almost banned. Today have all kinds of nudity/sexual contents all over everywhere. It is thus meaningless to use any law to measure us. The Bible (James) said if we break one law, we break them all. Law thus represents nothing in terms of the behavior of modern humans. To put it another way, if everyone breaks all the laws all the times, what's the point of setting up any law at all.

On the other hand, the most crucial purpose of a covenant is to identify the so-called righteous from the wicked. If law doesn't serve this purpose (as a result of everyone breaks all laws), it is thus removed from a covenant. It means the law part of a covenant is reduced to virtually zero while the faith/grace part of the same covenant is maximized to nearly 100%.

Romans 5:20-21 (NIV2011)
20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The scriptures declare Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. We then could point to Abraham's works and try to show it was a combination of the two. But the scriptures also declare "righteous Lot" Now Lot did not have a single right deed recorded about his works. In heaven the reward of Abraham will be immense compared to Lot.
John gave a thesis statement in his gospel in chapter 20. 30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. As you see the act of belief is equated to receiving life in His name. Jesus knows who is covered by his blood or not. So a fake confession or declaration of faith will not stand. Like the thief on the cross he expressed faith in Jesus and was saved from that moment.

zippy2006 said:

Why is "Salvation by God alone" supported more by justification by faith than justification by works?

Click to expand...

In short, good works are just a product of believer's faith, not the other way around. There are a lot of non-believers outside, they did a good works too (e.g. non-religious charity organization), except that wasn't a product of beliver's faith.

And no, believer's faith is by NO MEAN you can sin all you want.

zippy2006 said:

The election is much more interesting than the faith, the cause than the effect. And I suppose that's fine; it certainly makes sense given the Reformed understanding of God and his sovereignty.

Click to expand...

Think that one through to its logical end, if you will, because I think you make an interesting point. If the cause is more interesting than the end, then then what was the cause of God's election? Such a question is like asking that if God was the cause of all things, then what was the cause of God creating all things in the first place (a rhetorical question)? In a sense, all of creation was elected to exist, and there was no cause for that election. God was not caused to make that decision by anything but himself. The same issue arises when we discuss the origin of God. He had no cause. We call him self-existent because he had no beginning and no cause.

If you really wanted to form a unitary theory of everything, theologically speaking, then every facet ultimately finds its origin in God. Otherwise, there would have to have been a force external to God that competed with him in some fashion, a force that existed independently from God, a force that would necessarily be self-existent or derived from something self-existent. This fact of self-existence would make it another God, which we reject flatly. The most coherent theology, then, inherently ties everything back to God in some fashion, and not just when it comes to salvation by faith.

One should not be surprised at the Christian who sees the hand of God moving in everything. One should also not be surprised at the believer whose focus is not on the faith, but on the author and finisher of that faith. It's like the difference between being focused on the fitness of one's own body, versus a focus on the God who made it.

ev-8891 said:

In short, good works are just a product of believer's faith, not the other way around. There are a lot of non-believers outside, they did a good works too (e.g. non-religious charity organization), except that wasn't a product of beliver's faith.

And no, believer's faith is by NO MEAN you can sin all you want.

Click to expand...

I believe that covenants have the overlaying/overlapping effect on what you should do and how you will be judged.

Covenant(s) before the Jewish covenants:
The Law = our conscience.

Jewish Covenant (with Moses):
The Law = Mosaic Law.

It means that the Jews will be judged by Mosaic Law with Moses as the accuser. It however by no means says that the Jews no long need to follow self conscience to act. The Jews should still follow one's conscience to act, however they will be judged by using Mosaic Law as the measurement.

New Covenant:
Saved by faith alone.

By the same token, the gentile Christians will still need to act in accordance to their conscience, they are however judged by the New Covenant. At the same time, "works" mean a reflection of their faith. It is because "works" refer to how one follows Christ teaching, adding upon how one follows his conscience to act. In a nutshell, it means that you can't sin at will.

As for Jews, the same overlaying/overlapping effect exist. If a Jew becomes a Christian, he will be judged by the New Covenant to be saved by faith alone. However they should have the "works" as a reflection of his faith, and still need follow conscience to act. At the same time, he also should observe the Mosaic Law the best he can, except for the part relating to rites of sacrifice as Jesus is already in the replacement. However in terms of Law and Covenants, if he (a Jew in bloodline) chooses not to observe the Mosaic Law at all, he's now no longer a Jew but a gentile Christian.

In this way, that no Law actually goes away, except for that the rites are displaced by Jesus' crucifixion. While Christians actually need to follow the same Law (i.e., conscience for gentiles and Mosaic Law for Jews) the non-Christians should observe. The only difference is that Christians will not be judged the same way as how the non-Christian will be judged.

Another fundamental difference is that Christians have the option of 'not to sin' while non-Christians don't even realize that "it's a sin". Christian can thus declare and exercise their right of "not to sin". That's how Christian should gradually go towards holiness. This process is however very different from forcing yourself not to do something. It comes as natural as it should be. If you can speculate a quantum leap yourself, you may realize what "second born" could possibly mean.

My 2 cents.

zippy2006 said:

Sola fide is the Latin shorthand for the Protestant claim that we are justified by faith alone. In this thread I want to hear why Protestants think we are justified by faith alone, but I am not interested in scriptural justifications. You might try to answer this question, "Why did God enact the principle of justification by faith alone?" What is the reason for such a doctrine? Why might God have given it to us? How does it help you in your faith? What truths does it safeguard, etc.?

To cite an example, John Piper gives some rationale for sola fide in this video. One of his basic reasons is this: sola fide gives us an assurance and certainty that pave the way for good works. Without sola fide we would not produce any fruits, any good works.

If you like, you can give scriptural justification for your answer. For example, if you were John Piper you could give scriptural support for the idea that good works are necessary, or that sola fide gives us assurance and certainty. I'm just not interested in proof texts for the doctrine of sola fide itself.

Click to expand...

In my Opinion..... This is due to the fact that this would be the quality that is the most difficult to hold.

Think of it.... here we are 2000 some odd years later and people are asking if He is ever going to come back. People say to those who speak of the signs of the times.."ya, they have been saying that for years".

Not only that, but many just flat out right don't believe that there is a God.... or that Jesus was just a man,...or that the whole thing is a metaphor.

Combine that with the atheistic powers in control, taking the Bible from our schools, taking prayer from our schools and public offices. Being offended by a lone standing cross in a public area. The very palpable feeling of antagonistic attitudes toward anything biblical or related to Christ.

Then the increase in the belief and search for intelligent beings from far off places and the belief in an eventual contact of the 5th kind.......

All these things show a diminishing strength in the belief in Christ and the Gospel.

Faith is the last stronghold.... Faith is the final element of humans in connection with Christ. Once it is gone... there is nothing....

St_Worm2 said:

Hi WK, if you don't mind, let's just start with this. How can grace be a "symptom" of salvation? What do you mean by that? At best that seems backwards to me, but perhaps I am misunderstanding your meaning!?

Thanks!

Whoa, gotta go. I'll be back later today (Dv).

--David

Click to expand...

Think of a wedding ring... it does not marry you, if you take it off you are still married, if you wear one and you are not married you are still not married... It is a sign of marriage...When you are married the ring is proof and evidence of this marriage...

That is works. The wedding ring of salvation.

JacksBratt said:

Think of a wedding ring... it does not marry you, if you take it off you are still married, if you wear one and you are not married you are still not married... It is a sign of marriage...When you are married the ring is proof and evidence of this marriage...

That is works. The wedding ring of salvation.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense ... so Jesus' relation to the church is works?

~Cassia~ said:

That makes no sense ... so Jesus' relation to the church is works?

Click to expand...

Is a wedding ring the "relation"..?

No, the wedding ring is a symbol, an indicator, a sign, a proof, a tell.

You see someone with a wedding ring and you can assume they are married.

The ring is not what marries them...

You cannot go out and do a bunch of charity and say "there, I'm saved. You cannot put on a wedding ring and say "there, I'm married".

However, when you get married, you put on your wife's ring and she put's on yours... You wear it as a sign of your marriage.

When you are saved, your heart will change and you will be a new creature. The things you do will be works that indicate to anyone observing that you are a person of a certain character. This will likely, but not always, be a change from your old self which has the characteristic of a self oriented life style.

People will see this change and it will be an indicator of your salvation.

It's not a perfect parallel but it works for those who have the ability to give a little poetic license.

zippy2006 said:

Sola fide is the Latin shorthand for the Protestant claim that we are justified by faith alone. In this thread I want to hear why Protestants think we are justified by faith alone, but I am not interested in scriptural justifications. You might try to answer this question, "Why did God enact the principle of justification by faith alone?" What is the reason for such a doctrine? Why might God have given it to us? How does it help you in your faith? What truths does it safeguard, etc.?

To cite an example, John Piper gives some rationale for sola fide in this video. One of his basic reasons is this: sola fide gives us an assurance and certainty that pave the way for good works. Without sola fide we would not produce any fruits, any good works.

If you like, you can give scriptural justification for your answer. For example, if you were John Piper you could give scriptural support for the idea that good works are necessary, or that sola fide gives us assurance and certainty. I'm just not interested in proof texts for the doctrine of sola fide itself.

Click to expand...

You say "but I am not interested in scriptural justifications." "What do You think about that, Lord. You tell us to put on the whole armor of God, the Sword of the Spirit included, and then this one challenges us to a sword fight, put says we can't use a sword. OK, I hear You, Lord. I will do as you say, and just walk away."

~Cassia~ said:

That makes no sense ... so Jesus' relation to the church is works?

Click to expand...

What did Abraham actually do, what was this thing called faith, which is contrasted with works? Abraham exhibited loyalty, agreed, was agreeable. It says he believed God's promise and God acknowledged that belief as a sign of loyalty. However, loyalty is confirmed with obedience.

Suppose a conservative person converted to a person with a progressive world view. Suppose he attended a rally and listened to a speech and was convinced about the need to form a society that did not believe that the rewards from hard work and intelligence should only go back to its initiator, but that what differentiated men from animals was that men valued and protected even the weakest amongst them. At that rally it is suggested that fairness demanded that the underprivileged should not be allowed to remain so, not by teaching them a lesson, giving them mind numbing hard labor, but by education and enabling, and cash contributions were asked for to start such a program.

The person proves he has been converted, has a new world view, a change of heart, meta noia, is like a new born, has been born again, by ACTING like the new person. His response proves his conversion is true. If he hesitates, it means he is not fully transformed. A conservative person will hesitate to support the program because it goes against his principles, but a progressive person will think it's a very good idea and will contribute resources.

Abraham claimed he trusted God. His work of giving up Isaac proved his trust was genuine. It was not overnight. He had hesitated before. When he was finally convinced, he acted like a convinced person. Ditto Rahab.

A converted person is not seen to be converted just by him saying he is converted. He is seen to be converted by his acting like he is converted.

Wordkeeper said:

What did Abraham actually do, what was this thing called faith, which is contrasted with works? Abraham exhibited loyalty, agreed, was agreeable. It says he believed God's promise and God acknowledged that belief as a sign of loyalty. However, loyalty is confirmed with obedience.

Suppose a conservative person converted to a person with a progressive world view. Suppose he attended a rally and listened to a speech and was convinced about the need to form a society that did not believe that the rewards from hard work and intelligence should only go back to its initiator, but that what differentiated men from animals was that men valued and protected even the weakest amongst them. At that rally it is suggested that fairness demanded that the underprivileged should not be allowed to remain so, not by teaching them a lesson, giving them mind numbing hard labor, but by education and enabling, and cash contributions were asked for to start such a program.

The person proves he has been converted, has a new world view, a change of heart, meta noia, is like a new born, has been born again, by ACTING like the new person. His response proves his conversion is true. If he hesitates, it means he is not fully transformed. A conservative person will hesitate to support the program because it goes against his principles, but a progressive person will think it's a very good idea and will contribute resources.

Abraham claimed he trusted God. His work of giving up Isaac proved his trust was genuine. It was not overnight. He had hesitated before. When he was finally convinced, he acted like a convinced person. Ditto Rahab.

A converted person is not seen to be converted just by him saying he is converted. He is seen to be converted by his acting like he is converted.

Click to expand...

What is so often missed is that the son of promise is from Sarah (grace) while the son(s) of Abraham are from (faith)
I don't think anyone is contesting that faith is exhibited in living. Inwardly a circumcised heart is not as obvious. But it is the fruit from God's work within. That's what will remain.

Wordkeeper said:

Let me rephrase that:

The above excerpt seems to say that works prove the presence of grace, that works are a symptom of salvation.

Previous to that I stated what works really are:

However some posts seem to infer that the works are clues of the reception of grace, through believing Jesus was Lord, the belief also being a gift, instead of being a proof of real loyalty.

Click to expand...

Hi again WK, ah yes, I forgot about the interesting ways you tend to put things, but "symptom" will do I suppose

Also, please explain/define what you believe God's "grace" is, particularly as it relates to God's work in saving us.

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean in your last sentence above, so I am not sure how to reply. Please elaborate. I will say this much however, saving faith is a gift from God, but believing (after receiving the gift of faith) is something that 'we' do.

--David
p.s. - in regards to salvation, what do you mean by "real loyalty"?

zippy2006 said:

But is it a human act?

Click to expand...

No. This faith or trust isn't something we do; it is something given to us; a gift is not something one does, but something one is given. That gift can be used, but it remains a gift. Likewise faith is a gift, the using of faith is action--it is precisely this using of faith that comes good works, works of faith, of love, etc--but it is not on account of the works, but the gift, that we say we are saved.

Above you say, "Faith is trust upon Jesus Christ." When we trust we act, therefore faith is an act. It is something we do.

Click to expand...

Act flows from faith, but the faith itself is not act, it is not a thing we do.

I'm not sure how useful it would be to pursue this angle. The baptism of an infant is not the paradigm case of faith, and it presupposes the paradigm case of faith in an adult. It is a kind of special case, and it is tenuous to argue from an exception to a rule. For example, the baptism of an infant will take a different external form than the baptism of an adult, and we are not justified in saying that because we require no confession of faith from the infant we therefore ought to require no confession of faith from the adult.

Click to expand...

And yet the Sacrament accomplishes the same thing regardless. Baptism for the infant is not different than baptism for the adult; there is one Baptism, and it is for the remission of sins, and with it is attached the promise of the Holy Spirit, union with Christ in His death and resurrection, and all that Scripture says about it. What is true of the baptized is true of the baptized period. From this faith flows confession, praise, thanksgiving, and good works.

Of course in Catholicism we also believe an infant is infused with supernatural faith upon baptism, but the theology of faith does not take this as its starting point.

Click to expand...

Though our Lord Himself said we are to be as little children, for the kingdom belongs to those "such as these".

-CryptoLutheran

Wordkeeper said:

1. Faith, belief that Jesus is Lord, is a gift.
2. This faith results in grace, power.
3. This power can be used, by stepping out in attempting and succeeding in doing good works.
4. These good works are not a sign of inherent righteousness of a believer.
5. The righteousness of a believer is already guaranteed through imputation.
6. The good works are assurance of a functional faith leading to the giving of grace. See, we struggled with good works before, now its like falling of a log!

If not the above, then what?

Click to expand...

I am, once again having, trouble following/understanding what you're actually trying to say WK. I will attempt a response to your six points however. Here goes:


--David

If anyone is interested, Dr. Sproul's excellent historical/theological series called, Justification by Faith Alone, is available for free, both as a recently made HD video broadcast on Amazon Prime, or you can listen to it on Ligonier's website beginning here: After Darkness Light by R.C. Sproul

In both cases I believe the individual lectures within the teaching series are short, about 23 minutes each.