BlackSaab52 said:
Why should I believe in justification by faith alone when it has only been around for 500 years?
Clement of Rome believed in justification by faith alone. In chapter thirty-two of the
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Clement writes that we "are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever."
But even if Clement of Rome didn't hold to the doctrine, the Scriptures teach and affirm the concept in a number of places (Romans 4:5, Genesis 15:6, Acts 10:44-48, Mark 2:5, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:9, 2 Timothy 1:9, Philippians 3:9, etc.). That should be reason enough for us to believe its validity and follow it.
If it was true, then wouldn't other Christians before have believed in it? Why would God let people be blind for 1500 years about how to be saved?
There are no promises in the Scriptures that God's people will always be faithful to the revelation he has set before them (although I don't think that "1500 years" went by with no one understanding or following
Sola Fide). If passages like 2 Kings 22:8-13 (where the Scriptures are not only not followed, but are physically lost) are examples of how God fulfilled the promises of Genesis 13:15, it isn't a stretch to suggest that the church could fail to be faithful to essential doctrines. This isn't a novel concept either. Early church fathers in a variety of contexts commented on this. Two examples such suffice:
Ambrose (c. 339-97): Many times have the clergy erred; the bishop has wavered in his opinion; the rich men have adhered in their judgment to the earthly princes of the world; meanwhile the people alone preserved the faith entire (John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856], p. 197).
Jerome (347-420): The Church does not depend upon walls, but upon the truth of its doctrines. The Church is there, where the true faith is. But about fifteen or twenty years ago, heretics possessed all the walls of the Churches here. For, twenty years ago, heretics possessed all these Churches. But the true Church was there, where the true faith was (William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., [London: John Henry Jackson, 1853], Vol. 2, p. 344).
Why should I believe it when the people who supposedly rediscovered the doctrine, like Luther and Calvin, weren't very good Christians? Am I wrong?
I don't think anyone is a "very good" Christian. We will always be sinners in this life, struggling against the flesh. We would have to discredit most people's arguments by this reasoning, even if they were true. Not only are the consequences of this line of reasoning not good, this kind of argumentation is by its nature fallacious--the character of a person doesn't determine the truthfulness of statements made by said person. For example, if Hitler said that the earth was round, would we object to his statement simply because of the horrible crimes against humanity he committed during his life? No, I should hope not. In the same way, Luther's and Calvin's beliefs should be evaluated on their own, irregardless of your perception of their character.
~Matt