Talk:Sola fide

Terminology

Two things bother me about terminology:

1) A few places "salvation" and "justification" seem to get interchanged. Alister McGrath has noted in a few places that in the 16th Cent, Protestants took salvation to include both justification and sanctification, whereas Catholics used the term justification to include both. Also Protestants took faith to mean primarily "trust", whereas Catholics often understood them to mean intellectual belief.

E.g. in the start of the "Roman Catholic view", it is said "The Roman Catholic view tends to exclude sola fide as grounds for justification, holding instead that good works are also necessary for salvation." The switch from justification to salvation is problematical. Protestants believe that good works are part of the overall work of regenerating a person. However they are seen as the consequence of Christ working with us, which happens because we are united to him in faith. Thus good works are part of the overall process of salvation, but not of justification. So the switch from justification to salvation could cause confusion.

2) In the section on "status of the doctrine" there is talk of "faith" meaning "faithfulness". Some people may have claimed that justification is by faithfulness, but I'm not aware of them. The more common view, which I don't see on the page, is that "faith" is understood as "trust". This is the famous "fiduciary faith." It's hard to imagine a page of sola fide that doesn't mention this. [There are lots of references, but a good one would be http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=783&contentID=57253&shortcutID=20289. "Justifying faith is trust in Christ and his redemptive work." ]

Hedrick (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Views of other groups

Other groups believe that faith is sufficient for salvation but not necessary.

I suppose that this is true, and interesting; but I think it is irrelevant. Is it necessary for neutrality, or even balance, to say that besides sola fide believers there are believers in something different? Mkmcconn 22:20 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for neutrality or balance, but sometimes it helps to explain an idea by contrasting it with related or opposing ideas. In this case though, I'm inclined to leave it out unless there's a concrete example of an actual group that believes this. All I can think of is some form of universalism, in which case it wouldn't matter if you had faith or not. Wesley

Your point is especially valid for for Roman Catholicism, since the doctrine is formulated in contrast to the Catholic view (or at least, the Protestant understanding of the Catholic view); and that reference should be left in for that reason - unlike this one.

The article says that Restorationist groups deny sola fide. This is not true of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which is usually considered Restorationist yet fully accepts sola fide / justification by faith alone. Colin MacLaurin 17:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Romans 3:28

Regarding Luther's change to Romans 3:28, this was discussed in a book by an Orthodox theologian (name escapes me now) but independently confirmed by my wife, who was able to compare two German translations of the passage, one in a Luther translation of the NT and another in a Zwingli translation. Should be confirmable by anyone else with access to the same. Wesley 04:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Correct phrasing

The word "apparently" in the subtitles are misleading and very subjective. Some of those verses have many different interpretation from many different churches. (at least it wasn't apparent to me --;;) I changed it.. but i think someone needs to come up with a better word choice.. Highwind 00:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would "Alleged support for sola fide in the NT" and "Alleged rejection of sola fide in the NT" be any better? This would suggest or emphasize that the NT doesn't contradict itself so much as different groups' interpretations of the NT contradict each other. Hopefully someone else will have a better idea. Wesley 03:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like that~ cool! Highwind 08:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sola Fide: has the meaning changed? Do Catholics agree?

This doctrine is accepted by many Protestants, including Lutherans and Baptists, and is rejected by Catholics.

I think it would be more accurate to say "This doctrine, as it is here defined, is... rejected by Catholics." Catholics do accept it when it is understood to mean "a person is only justified by faith," "only a person with faith can be justified," or "without faith it is impossible to be justified." Johnaugus

After seeing your comment, I modified the passage in question. However, during this process I came to the conclusion that the first paragraph in this section is probably not a fair description of sola fide. Instead, it waters down this doctrine to the point that all Catholics and traditional Protestants would agree with what it says.

I suspect that some Protestants have modified this doctrine over the years, and this page really needs to distinguish Luther's original teaching (and perhaps different claims of what Luther's teaching meant) from the views of Protestants today.

The big sticking point is -- what does "faith" mean? If the word "faith" is never defined, anyone can believe in salvation by faith alone. The paragraph I am complaining about avoided the word "faith" entirely.

I'd love to hear a Protestant view on this, especially from a traditional Reformed or LCMS believer. As a Catholic, when I hear Protestants today say "You are not saved just by believing -- you need to have a saving faith, not just any faith," it sounds to me as if they are saying "Faith alone doesn't save; this faith needs to be made active through your works." My question is: if Luther heard them say this, would he interpret it as I am interpreting it? Lawrence King 07:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In a well-know theology textbook, "Christian Theology: An Introduction" (as well as other places, but this is the most accessible), the Church historian Alister McGrath maintains that the issue was at least in part a misunderstanding based on terms. The usual Protestant definition classified salvation into justification and sanctification. Justification is our status before God. It is the result of pure grace, which we receive in faith. But having been forgiven by God and placed in a right relationship with him, Christ work within us to renew us, and we are expected to show this in good works. However Trent, along with other Catholic works, used justification for the whole process. They also tended to understand faith as intellectual belief. So Catholics understood Protestants as saying that all of salvation was based on intellectual belief. That's not at all what Protestants meant. The traditional definition of "faith" in this context is "trust". Note that faith is not the *cause* of justification, but the way we receive it. That is, God puts us in a right relationship with himself by grace, through Christ's death. He does this before we are in a position to do anything on our own. All we can do is receive this, trusting him for our justification. For Calvin at least faith established a union with Christ (he called it a "mystic union"). Through that, Christ works to transform us. This transformed person then does good works because we now love God and our fellow man. The debate was never whether Christians do good works. It was logical order in which various things happened. Protestants wanted to make sure that action was seen as a result of God's work with us, and not a precondition. The reason is that good works tend to have a different flavor if they are done in response to God's love or if they are done because we think we have to do them in order to get to the point where God will justify us, or to maintain our status before God. I believe that currently Catholics normally believe that God initiates the process. So if you sort out the terminology, they might well agree with Protestants in how things start (although they may tend to involve Baptism in a slightly different way). (This may not have been true in the 16th Cent. A common Catholic view was that we were expected to do what we could on our own, and God would then respond with grace.) However I think there's still a difference in what happens ongoing. The theoretical difference, which I think is still present, is that Catholics see grace as something that is infused into us. Our ongoing status before God depends upon that. Any mortal sin breaks that relationship. And there are enough mortal sins that this is not something that happens only rarely to unusually bad people. Protestants believe that our status before God is entirely due to his grace. And that grace is seen as God's commitment to us, i.e. it's external to us rather than infused in us. If we disobey, he may discipline us, but we don't cease being justified. Calvin's mystical union is probably a fairly close analog to the Catholic infused grace. Because of our union with Christ, he works in us. But it is never envisioned as something that's truly resident in us. Rather, Christ works in us through his union with us, but from outside. That's why no matter how we sin, Christ's grace can still remain. In some current scholarship (particularly N.T.Wright) this is seen as God's faithfulness to his covenant. Wright understands justification in Paul's letters as being the recognition of our status before God rather than the status itself. However when he draws out the implications of his view, the role of faith and obedience isn't very different from the traditional Protestant one. Hedrick (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Those ideas of salvation by faith alone which are intended to contrast with the traditional Catholic view, are well-expressed by the confessional documents quoted in the article. While I do believe that the Catholic and the Protestant views are gradually approaching one another, they have not yet merged. Trent is (generally speaking) being much more liberally interpreted by both parties, than in the past. And, Protestants are less typically presenting their view of salvation in a piece-meal fashion - which has caused, and still does cause, differences of understanding and aggravates the disagreement. The sides are listening more carefully to one another - and doing so is less likely to raise accusations of betrayal. It is good to understand one another better. But, while it's difficult for anyone on either side to represent their side with authority (especially the Protestant side), "traditional Reformed or LCMS" believers, for example, are not convinced that the Reformation was not necessary. Mkmcconn (Talk) 08:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The question is not just what "faith" means (does it include hope, love, and faithfulness or is it mere assent?), but how "only/alone" works in the overall phrase (the difference between "a person is only justified by faith and cannot be justified without it" and "faith, and faith alone, justifies a person"). Depending on the answers to questions like these, Catholics agree or disagree with the doctrine. Even many Protestants seem to disagree over the meaning of sola fide. Mkmcconn: though you say "Those ideas of salvation by faith alone which are intended to contrast with the traditional Catholic view, are well-expressed by the confessional documents quoted in the article," several of those quotes could be interpreted to agree with Catholic doctrine. It really does matter what each group means by "faith" and how they intend "only/alone" to work in the overall construction. Johnaugus

I can agree that "it really does matter what each group means by 'faith'", and it is certainly no secret that Protestants disagree with one another over the meaning of sola fide. But, I really think that you are over-simplifying. None except anti-nomians believe that faith by itself justifies (nuda fide, I think is the derogatory term). Both, Catholics and Protestants believe that "full" faith is a principle of faithfulness, not bare assent to propositions. Both parties have been aware of these similarities from the beginning; and yet, the disagreement is as strong as ever.

As the final few ecumenical quotes indicate, there are attempts to interpret and explain Protestant documents of faith in such a way that a Roman Catholic would not necessarily disagree with them. However, these attempts are only partially successful, and suspected by some very vocal critics of being after all a brute exercise in distortion. And anyway, all of these works intentionally avoid specifics either of Protestant or of Catholic doctrine and practice - not surreptitiously, but because they are young efforts.

By the way, the article on Faith is terrible. The Catholic view is no longer even explicitly represented there. Maybe you could spearhead a rewrite. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When you say "Both, Catholics and Protestants believe that 'full' faith is a principle of faithfulness, not bare assent to propositions" I do not disagree, as you seem to think. Antinomians are very rare in my experience, though they exist. As I said before, there's more than one question in the sola fide issue: what "faith" means and how "only/alone" works in the overall phrase. "A person is only justified by faith and cannot be justified without it" is different from "faith, and faith alone, justifies a person," but either construction can be understood in more than one way depending on what "faith" means.

And I don't think I'm "oversimplifying." The sola fide issue isn't the only one. There are many different conceptions of "justification" among different Christians too. So even if everyone agreed to the same meaning (or meanings?) of sola fide, not all differences would be solved yet. I wish it were easier for all our sakes, but it's not. :(

Thanks very much for the heads-up on the Faith article. If it's something I can help improve, I will try! Johnaugus

I think it is important that when studying the solas, one understands all of them before attempting to draw a conclusion on it's meaning. For example, Lutherans believe that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Roman Catholic Church, while at times using similar language, still officially holds that faith, in order to save, must be accompanied by (or "infused with") some "work" or "love" active within a Christian.

The "Protestant Distinctive" heading

Mkmcconn, I agree with the changes you made in this section, except for one thing: the headings.

I had changed "A Protesant Distinctive" to "The doctrine of sola fide". This was a lame title, but I do feel this section needs a general title. The first paragraph describes the meaning of the doctrine. This paragraph does not describe or defend the claim that this doctrine is distinctively Protestant.

So the "Protestant Distinctive" heading should be a subheading above the second paragraph, which does say who believes it.

Also, consider this: Luther clearly believed that Paul taught sola fide, and Luther very likely believed that Augustine taught sola fide. Unless you are willing to call Paul and Augustine "Protestants", then the statement that "sola fide is a Protestant distinctive" is a bit controversial. In any event, I think this claim shouldn't be the over-heading of a major section. Lawrence King 06:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also think it is a little imprecise to say that all Protestants believe this. I'm certainly not a Methodist theologian, but by my reading of the doctrine of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, it's not faith alone, but faith with a penitent heart. That's a subtle distinction that puts it closer to the Catholic faith theologically than to many other Protestant faiths. Similarly, the Methodist Church does not teach that once saved, you are always saved, and as the table says, Wesley believed in the need for continued sanctification, which contradicts the description of it as an event. In much the same way, the Catholics believe that baptism is just the start of a spiritual journey, not the destination. I'd be very curious to understand, then, how the Methodist Church is described as believing in sola fide and the Catholic faith is not. I'm sure there are some subtle distinctions I'm missing here, but it seems to me that if you drew a map of faith and put a dot for the Catholic faith in New York, belief-wise, you'd mark Methodists somewhere near D.C., with most of the other Protestant faiths somewhere near Adelaide.... 68.165.1.189 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction/addition request

The NRSV Bible states in its introduction to Habakkuk (perhaps presumptuously) that the doctrine is based on Hab 2.4b, which was the influence for Rom 1.17 (cited in the article), and also Gal 3.11. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the subject could find a way to insert the potential influence in the article. Eduardo Cuellar 18 Aug 2005

There are probably enough such verses to warrant a separate list of "Old Testament verses used to support Sola fide." Psalm 50 (51 in most English Bibles) and Micah 6:6-8 are two that come to mind. Wesley 06:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

History

There is nothing here from the standpoint of history, particularly social history, historical theology, etc. As if doctrine just pops out of a realm of pure abstraction and exists in hermetic bubbles of thought. Dan Knauss

I'm not sure I understand your statement in regards to the lack of historical theology within this document. Sola Fide is one of the core statements and teaching of the reformation, heavily emphasized by Martin Luther. While I would agree that there is only brief mention here, there is a link to the Wikipedia publication on Martin Luther, which goes into much more detail.

Couldn't find a place to add this, but wanted to make mention - you cited the Articles of Religion from the Methodist Episcopal church, however in many places this is still a seperate denomination. It was not involved in the merger with the Evangelical United Brethren and the Methodist church which formed The United Methodist Church. Just thought I'd point that out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert fulton1 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Biased Point of View

If this page is to conform to the neutral point-of-view pillar of Wikipedia it needs to explain why some Christians don't follow the protestant belief of sola fide. If you would like to explain why refuting sola fide should NOT be on this page then start here.

J.H 15:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This article reads as a defence to Roman Catholicism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fabiodrn (talk • contribs) .

The phrase "... See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." was previously inaccurately representing itself as biblical text from James 2. Doesn't the New Testament verses provided under "New Testament verses used to refute sola fide" provide an adequate refutal?

Krb106 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Roman Catholic position and other positions relative to sola fide need to be presented. We have to imagine ourselves as explaining what sola fide is to someone who never heard of it in the manner of an encyclopedia. All sides would need to be presented with the "narrator" being the neutral observer. Something like that as neutral point of view.--Drboisclair 04:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

removed section: Salvation verses outside of faith and works

While I would prefer to remove the entire section that lists verses, can the inclusion of these two verses be justified?

1 Corinthians 7:15d-16

God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

1 Timothy 2:15

Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

What scholar anywhere would interpret these verses as having anything to do with the instrumental means of justification, which is the subject of this article? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to the removal of this section for the reasons stated. I guess that the rationale for having it in there is that some interpreted the passages to mean that they leave room for one receiving salvation in a way other than through faith alone. These passages are a bit unclear, so they need to be interpreted in the light of the clear passages ("Scripture interprets Scripture").--Drboisclair 04:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bible verses

The section on Bible verses is quite long. Both sides should be reduced IMHO, and the various interpretations of the verses given from reliable sources to demonstrate how each side understands them. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It should stay and please understand that Calvinism is after Luther in precidents. The reason why it should stay is because other articles reference this so they don't have to compile a list. The list is actually valid. It is precisely what Sola fide should is about. Presenting the case in the context of Sola scriptura. (F0xfree 09:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC))

I'm not saying the lists should be eliminated, just reduced. I'm sure Catholics et al. have something to say about the "Pro" verses and Protestants have something to say about the "Con" verses. Just listing verses without any explanation as to how they are understood is not exceedingly helpful, IMHO.

As for the template, Calvinism considers the solas an essential part of its theology, too. It was listed first in the text so that it would appear second (in left-to-right reading order). For that reason, I have restored the template. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

These verses need to stay, but be written into paragraphs so they can be understood.Rogue Commander 22:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

More on the Calvinism template

F0xfree wrote on my talk page:

Hi there. I think it would be much better to display Calvanism in the historical passages that cover it rather than putting it next to Luther because there are thousands of other denominations that should be included if we use your standard. Please respond. Thanks you.

I would suggest that we should be consistent: either add all templates at the point of the historical passages or keep them all above. While the distinctive was emphasized by Luther, it is not exclusive to Lutheranism, and Calvinism is a broad term for the theology of the Reformed churches, which is a sizable group. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

But why are not all Protestant denominations included then? (F0xfree 06:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Conceivably more could be included, though not many place as much stress on the doctrine as do the Luteran and Reformed churches. --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Biased View in "Protestant Distinctive"?

"The doctrine, though never defined explicitly in the scriptural texts, holds that it is not through personal goodness that sinners are reconciled to God."

Hi! I copied this quote from the "Protestant Distinctive" section because I think that someone may want to edit that section in order to gain more neutrality on the issue since this line seems to imply a leaning towards the Catholic POV. Namely, it undermines Protestants and claims that they have no "scriptual" standing. I feel that it would be better if this section said that Protestants often use Ephesians 2:8-9 ("For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast") as a defense for sola fide. But, I'm new so please respond either way with your thoughts! 204.95.32.3 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Kobukson

I'm a protestant, and I think it's fine as is. The doctrine isn't spelled out explicitly as we put it forth (e.g., Rom 3.28 says "justified by faith" [n.b., no "alone"]), but rather it seems (at least to me and other protestants) to be the general teaching on the subject. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the appearance of a non-NPOV in the current edition of this section, I replaced the Protestant Distinctive section with a "Justification in Lutheranism" section. If at any point you want to reintroduce the old section, I don't mind, but I feel that the Lutheranism section deserves to be placed first since it is the best sourced part of the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Joint Baptist-Catholic statement

I remember a while back there was a joint statement from the Pope as well as an association of Baptists on this matter. I was wondering if anyone knows what that statement said exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my bad I was thinking of the Lutheran World Federation/Catholic Church statement. But apparently it's not unofficial, or at least this statement isn't:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-official-statement_en.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Contrasting Passages

I have deleted a section titled "Contrasting Passages" as it was little more than a transcribed sermon refuting the Catholic position. It might be salvageable with some editing, but didn't add anything, and was written in the first person. 128.143.247.164 (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sola fide and Intellectualism

There should maybe be non-original research about the relationship between sola fide and contemporary trends in intellectualism. One of the most frequent criticisms of sola fide is to link it with the concept of fideism, which is almost to say that it is the root cause of anti-intellectualism within Evangelical circles in modern America today, as well as a factor of religious fundamentalism in general. ADM (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Structure

The article needs to be restuctured. It is a bit of a mess right now. -- Secisek (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. My thoughts exactly.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ephesians 2:8-10

I was looking through the scripture verses used to support and to oppose sola fide and I noticed that Ephesians 2:8-10 was listed under support. Shouldn't it be Ephesians 2:8-9 under support and Ephesians 2:10 under oppose? Especially since the Catholic view section cites those verses as one of the reasons that the Catholic Church opposes sola fide? Looking for input. Thanks. Farsight001 (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you study the passages closely, you will see that we are only saved by his grace, and not by works, to avoid boasting. But works are still crucial, since God chose us for salvation for the purpose of good works. After all, Eph 2:8,9 shows one aspect of salvation, which is justification. This is part of the salvation package; we are regenerated, justified, sanctified, and glorified. Eph 2:10 focuses on sanctification.Nuvitauy07 (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)