Does Sola Fide need to be embraced to be saved?

[Ladybug823]

I would wonder why so many Christians take the stance "no WE are the true Christians" I have never understood the mentality of "we have it all right". It seems clear to me that no one has it all right no matter how much they study. So why do so many take the stance of "It's my way or the highway"?

From my understanding all Christians each have their own unique way of looking at the bible and at the world in general. That way we can learn from each other and form a more complete view of what the nature of God really is.

1 Corinthians 12: 14-20

Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

From what I have seen this is something people will complain about most in their church if they state a view that is rejected and they are not allowed to explain themselves. But as soon as the tables are turned on them they will become hypocritical and treat those who have a different view from them in the same manner.
This is part of why I have chosen not to affiliate myself with any particular denomination. I have noticed that I cant seem to fit in anywhere because I like a little bit of a bunch of denominations but they don't seem to like that I do that very much, therefore I choose to float a little.



This is my first time starting a thread so go easy on me

[themuzicman]

You could become a member as an Arminian and could voice your views in discussion time, but you would not be allowed to teach Arminian doctrine.

An Open Theist could be a member as well, but would not be allowed to teach at all.

"Roman Catholic Soteriology" is a wide spectrum. If you deny sola fide, then you deny the gospel and are not a Christian. You would be welcome to attend the church as the object of evangelism.

SO, for the first 1500 years of the Church, there were no Christians?

[RBerman]

SO, for the first 1500 years of the Church, there were no Christians?

Roman Catholic soteriology, as it stands today, is not 1500 years old. The current teaching, which anathematized sola fide, (although the modern Roman Church has veered away from the idea of anathema altogether) was not dogmatized until the Council of Trent in the 16th Century. Prior to that, sola fide was one of several competing soteriologies allowed within the Roman Church, and those who held to it were Christians. See volume four of Jaroslav Pelikan's History of Christian Doctrine for an extensive review of pre-Reformation articulations of what's now called Reformed soteriology.

[themuzicman]

Roman Catholic soteriology, as it stands today, is not 1500 years old. The current teaching, which anathematized sola fide, (although the modern Roman Church has veered away from the idea of anathema altogether) was not dogmatized until the Council of Trent in the 16th Century. Prior to that, sola fide was one of several competing soteriologies allowed within the Roman Church, and those who held to it were Christians. See volume four of Jaroslav Pelikan's History of Christian Doctrine for an extensive review of pre-Reformation articulations of what's now called Reformed soteriology.

It was not dogmatized, that's true. But no Christian before the reformation embraced Sola Fide. Even the Calvinist's hero, Augstine would have denied sola fide. Again, if this doctrine is required, then there were no Christians before 1500, because none embraced it.

[RBerman]

It was not dogmatized, that's true. But no Christian before the reformation embraced Sola Fide. Even the Calvinist's hero, Augustine would have denied sola fide. Again, if this doctrine is required, then there were no Christians before 1500, because none embraced it.

Depends on what you mean by "embraced." The key question is whether our good deeds partially cause God to accept us as righteous. Again, I'll direct you to the History of Christian Doctrine which I have packed in a box for moving at the moment and can't pull out to show you in great detail how the situation is more complex than that. And this hardly seems like the thread for this discussion, which has been rehashed in the Theology forum umpteen times.

[DaveKicks]

It was not dogmatized, that's true. But no Christian before the reformation embraced Sola Fide. Even the Calvinist's hero, Augstine would have denied sola fide. Again, if this doctrine is required, then there were no Christians before 1500, because none embraced it.

I think that's an overly-broad brush. As RBerman already said, there were plenty of expressions of sola fide and other reformed doctrine long before the reformation. Take, for instance, the first and second Councils of Orange - the second council's canons are as reformed as the Westminster Confession!

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves us for what we shall be by his gift, and not by our own deserving.

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God.

[RBerman]

I don't get these distinctions. Why distinguish between beliefs required for membership and those required for teaching?

Some beliefs are closer to the core of Christianity than others. The requirements for membership in the local church are as broad as the requirements for membership in Christ's kingdom. But additional requirements of belief and lifestyle fall upon those who assume a leadership role within the church. Paul's epistle to Titus uses phrases like "able to give instruction in sound doctrine" and "teach what is good" and "sound in faith" and "sound speech that cannot be condemned" with respect to leaders. Those who are young in the faith are to sit under the instruction of those who are mature, so that one day they may be qualified to fill the role of the mature saint.

[themuzicman]

I think that's an overly-broad brush. As RBerman already said, there were plenty of expressions of sola fide and other reformed doctrine long before the reformation. Take, for instance, the first and second Councils of Orange - the second council's canons are as reformed as the Westminster Confession!

1) The council of Orange was never accepted as eccumenical, and it's language specifically chosen to refute semi-Pelagianism.

2) The council of Orange does not express sola fide as the Reformation defines it. It only refutes the idea that man can approach God in his fallen state without aid from the Holy Spirit, as the semi-Pelagians claimed. So, this is not a statement of sola fide as the Reformers defined it.

3) Augustine himself would have rejected the doctrine of Sola Fide, as he embraced the RCC doctrine of salvation, which include participating in the sacraments.

[DaveKicks]

1) The council of Orange was never accepted as eccumenical, and it's language specifically chosen to refute semi-Pelagianism.

When did this become an argument about the universal acceptance of sola fide? You asked RBerman if his position that sola fide is the halmark of true Christianity meant that no Christians existed between pentecost and the reformation. You claimed that such views didn't exist prior to Luther. I simply quoted evidence to the contrary. I never claimed that it was ecumenical. Such a claim has nothing to do with this discussion.

(However it is interesting that the second council of Orange - the one I quoted - was given papal approval.)

2) The council of Orange does not express sola fide as the Reformation defines it. It only refutes the idea that man can approach God in his fallen state without aid from the Holy Spirit, as the semi-Pelagians claimed. So, this is not a statement of sola fide as the Reformers defined it.

While I certainly recognize that there are differences between Orange's and Luther's articulation of sola fide, I'm not convinced that they are in fundamental conflict.

3) Augustine himself would have rejected the doctrine of Sola Fide, as he embraced the RCC doctrine of salvation, which include participating in the sacraments.

Augustine's personal views are not the primary issue here. What is primary is the fact that, counter to your claims, sola fide did exist prior to the reformation.

Even so, my faith is built on Scripture, not Augustine, not Luther, not Calvin, nor on ecumenical councils. Like Chappie says: I don't care how systematic (or, in this case, historical) your theology is. I care how biblical it is.

[themuzicman]

When did this become an argument about the universal acceptance of sola fide? You asked RBerman if his position that sola fide is the halmark of true Christianity meant that no Christians existed between pentecost and the reformation. You claimed that such views didn't exist prior to Luther. I simply quoted evidence to the contrary. I never claimed that it was ecumenical. Such a claim has nothing to do with this discussion.

(However it is interesting that the second council of Orange - the one I quoted - was given papal approval.)

But not eccumenical approval. And I establish a more consise reason below. It was simply important to note that Orange was rejected as an infallible doctrine.

While I certainly recognize that there are differences between Orange's and Luther's articulation of sola fide, I'm not convinced that they are in fundamental conflict.

The conflict occurs post-salvation. Orange only seeks to deal with man's ability pre-salvation. Sola Fide says that faith alone is the only requirement of salvation. That's both initial and final salvation. While the RCC does embrace faith as the initiator of salvation, they do (and always have) said that performing the sacracments was an ongoing requirement. In fact, this has been the universal belief of the Church since its inception.

Sola fide is a reformation invention. No one ever heard of the concept, much less believed it before Luther.

Augustine's personal views are not the primary issue here. What is primary is the fact that, counter to your claims, sola fide did exist prior to the reformation.

Except that it did not. Sola fide is a direct contradiction to the Church's (and the RCC's specifically) doctrine of salvation, which the entire church held until 1500. The council of Orange does not speak of sola fide.

And Augustine is both the reformation hero and lead theologian regarding the council of Orange.

Even so, my faith is built on Scripture, not Augustine, not Luther, not Calvin, nor on ecumenical councils. Like Chappie says: I don't care how systematic (or, in this case, historical) your theology is. I care how biblical it is.

That's actually my signature, and the line I invented.

And regardless of what you claim to see in Scripture, the fact remains that if sola fide is required for salvation, then there were no Christians before 1500.

But let's look further. Even if the council of Orange embraces sola fide, that's one group of Christians in a small part of a very large Church. Are you prepare to say that out of the billions of Catholics that have lived, only maybe a few thousand from a small part of the Western Church were ever Christians? What about the early Church Fathers who formed the early creeds that we all hold to? Unsaved? Not Christians?

The very idea that sola fide is required for salvation is simply perposterous.

[Jedidiah]

The very idea that sola fide is required for salvation is simply perposterous.

Can you explain what is required for salvation besides faith?

[DaveKicks]

But not eccumenical approval. And I establish a more consise reason below. It was simply important to note that Orange was rejected as an infallible doctrine.

Again, this has nothing the question of the thread.

The conflict occurs post-salvation. Orange only seeks to deal with man's ability pre-salvation. Sola Fide says that faith alone is the only requirement of salvation. That's both initial and final salvation. While the RCC does embrace faith as the initiator of salvation, they do (and always have) said that performing the sacracments was an ongoing requirement. In fact, this has been the universal belief of the Church since its inception.

Sola fide is a reformation invention. No one ever heard of the concept, much less believed it before Luther.

You are burning a straw man. Sola fide means that faith through which God transforms the believer into Christ's likeness and obedience is what saves:

"A pretense of trusting in Christ is a vain pretense as long as men live wicked lives."
Jonathan Edwards

"We are saved by faith alone but not by faith that remains alone."
Martin Luther

If sola fide was actually what you claim, the reformers would have rejected it too.

Except that it did not. Sola fide is a direct contradiction to the Church's (and the RCC's specifically) doctrine of salvation, which the entire church held until 1500. The council of Orange does not speak of sola fide.

And Augustine is both the reformation hero and lead theologian regarding the council of Orange...

And regardless of what you claim to see in Scripture, the fact remains that if sola fide is required for salvation, then there were no Christians before 1500.

Because you define the term improperly - see above.

That's actually my signature, and the line I invented.

Well thanks for that. I'm a big fan.

But let's look further. Even if the council of Orange embraces sola fide, that's one group of Christians in a small part of a very large Church. Are you prepare to say that out of the billions of Catholics that have lived, only maybe a few thousand from a small part of the Western Church were ever Christians? What about the early Church Fathers who formed the early creeds that we all hold to? Unsaved? Not Christians?

I think that the "early Church fathers" actually did believe sola fide though they did not articulate it fully. This is a systemic issue in patristics - Dan Brown can claim a late canon simply because there wasn't a need to articulate one until heretics started abusing it. This same principle applies to Christ's divinity (Nicea) and a host of other essential doctrines. There wasn't a need to articulate sola fide fully (that is, outside the books of John, Romans, Galatians, etc) until the Roman Church started teaching in direct opposition to it in the late middle ages and rennaisance era.

[RBerman]

You guys really ought to take this soteriology debate to another thread. Ladybug, a new user, started this thread for rather a different sort of discussion than the one you're retreading.

[DaveKicks]

... He started it!

[David Hayward]

I would wonder why so many Christians take the stance "no WE are the true Christians" I have never understood the mentality of "we have it all right". It seems clear to me that no one has it all right no matter how much they study. So why do so many take the stance of "It's my way or the highway"?

Reminds me of the heyday of Marxist-Leninist groups: the worst enemy of any one such group seemed always to be not Capitalism but another Marxist-Leninist group who interpreted the Marxist teaching or Praxis slightly differently. Christian denominations have, historically, been similar.

Fortunately, the bad old centuries of inter-denominational hatred seem long gone, a few individuals excepting. But you seem to have found that same tendency in miniature.

From my understanding all Christians each have their own unique way of looking at the bible and at the world in general. That way we can learn from each other and form a more complete view of what the nature of God really is.

Blessedly, TWEB has that useful function.

David