Posted on 08/31/2005 6:10:50 PM PDT by Petrosius
by James Akin
Many Protestants today realize that Catholics adhere to the idea of salvation sola gratia (by grace alone), but fewer are aware that Catholics do not have to condemn the formula of justification sola fide (by faith alone), provided this phrase is properly understood.
The term pistis is used in the Bible in a number of different senses, ranging from intellectual belief (Romans 14:22, 23, James 2:19), to assurance (Acts 17:31), and even to trustworthiness or reliability (Romans 3:3, Titus 2:10). Of key importance is Galatians 5:6, which refers to "faith working by charity." In Catholic theology, this is what is known as fides formata or "faith formed by charity." The alternative to formed faith is fides informis or "faith unformed by charity." This is the kind of faith described in James 2:19, for example.
Whether a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term "faith" is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19, as every non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone).
However, if the term "faith" is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.
A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata. Adding the word "formed" to clarify the nature of the faith in "sola fide" renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.
Why, then, do Catholics not use the formula faith alone in everyday discourse? There are two reasons:
First, whenever a theological tradition is developing, it must decide which way key terms are going to be used or there will be hopeless confusion. For example, during the early centuries it was decided that in connection with Jesus identity the term God would be used as a noun rather than as a proper name for the Father. This enables us to say, Jesus is God and be understood. If the term God were used as a proper name for the Father in this regard, we would have to say, "Jesus is not God." Obviously, the Church could not have people running around saying "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God," though both would be perfectly consistent with the Trinity depending on how the term "God" is being used (i.e., as a noun or a proper name for the Father). Hopeless confusion (and charges of heresy, and bloodbaths) would have resulted in the early centuries if the Church did not specify the meaning of the term "God" when used in this context.
Of course, the Bible uses the term "God" in both senses, but to avoid confusion (and heretical misunderstandings on the part of the faithful, who could incline to either Arianism or Modalism if they misread the word "God" in the above statements) it later became necessary to adopt one usage over the other when discussing the identity of Jesus.
A similar phenomenon occurs in connection with the word "faith." Evangelical leaders know this by personal experience since they have to continually fight against antinomian understandings of the term "faith" (and the corresponding antinomian evangelistic practices and false conversions that result). Because "faith" is such a key term, it is necessary that each theological school have a fixed usage of it in practice, even though there is more than one use of the term in the Bible. Evangelical leaders, in response to the antinomianism that has washed over the American church scene in the last hundred and fifty years, are attempting to impose a uniform usage to the term "faith" in their community to prevent these problems. (And may they have good luck in this, by the way.)
This leads me to why Catholics do not use the formula "faith alone." Given the different usages of the term "faith" in the Bible, the early Church had to decide which meaning would be treated as normative. Would it be the Galatians 5 sense or the Romans 14/James 2 sense? The Church opted for the latter for several reasons:
First, the Romans 14 sense of the term pistis is frankly the more common in the New Testament. It is much harder to think of passages which demand that pistis mean "faith formed by charity" than it is to think of passages which demand that pistis mean "intellectual belief." In fact, even in Galatians 5:6 itself, Paul has to specify that it is faith formed by charity that he is talking about, suggesting that this is not the normal use of the term in his day.
Second, the New Testament regularly (forty-two times in the KJV) speaks of "the faith," meaning a body of theological beliefs (e.g. Jude 3). The connection between pistis and intellectual belief is clearly very strong in this usage.
Third, Catholic theology has focused on the triad of faith, hope, and charity, which Paul lays great stress on and which is found throughout his writings, not just in 1 Corinthians 13:13 (though that is the locus classicus for it), including places where it is not obvious because of the English translation or the division of verses. If in this triad "faith" is taken to mean "formed faith" then hope and charity are collapsed into faith and the triad is flattened. To preserve the distinctiveness of each member of the triad, the Church chose to use the term "faith" in a way that did not include within it the ideas of hope (trust) and charity (love). Only by doing this could the members of the triad be kept from collapsing into one another.
Thus the Catholic Church normally expresses the core essences of these virtues like this:
Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us . . . because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)
Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)
Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)
In common Catholic usage, faith is thus unconditional belief in what God says, hope is unconditional trust in God, and charity is unconditional love for God. When we are justified, God places all three of these virtues in our hearts. These virtues are given to each of the justified, even though our outward actions do not always reflect them because of the fallen nature we still possess. Thus a person may still have the virtue of faith even if momentarily tempted by doubt, a person may still have the virtue of trust even if scared or tempted by despair, and a person may still have the virtue of charity even if he is often selfish. Only a direct, grave violation (mortal sin against) of one of the virtues destroys the virtue.
As our sanctification progresses, these virtues within us are strengthened by God and we are able to more easily exercise faith, more easily exercise trust, and more easily exercise love. Performing acts of faith, hope, and charity becomes easier as we grow in the Christian life (note the great difficulty new converts often experience in these areas compared to those who have attained a measure of spiritual maturity).
However, so long as one has any measure of faith, hope, and charity, one is in a state of justification. Thus Catholics often use the soteriological slogan that we are "saved by faith, hope, and charity." This does not disagree with the Protestant soteriological slogan that we are "saved by faith alone" if the term "faith" is understood in the latter to be faith formed by charity or Galatians 5 faith.
One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above, the similarity between hope and the way Protestants normally define "faith"; that is, as an unconditional "placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit." The definition Protestants normally give to "faith" is the definition Catholics use for "hope."
However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.
Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which "works by charity" then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.
We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:
Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity
The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant's idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan "salvation by faith alone" becomes the Catholic slogan "salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone)."
This was recognized a few years ago in The Church's Confession of Faith: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, put out by the German Conference of Bishops, which stated:
Catholic doctrine . . . says that only a faith alive in graciously bestowed love can justify. Having "mere" faith without love, merely considering something true, does not justify us. But if one understands faith in the full and comprehensive biblical sense, then faith includes conversion, hope, and lovegood Catholic sense. According to Catholic doctrine, faith encompasses both trusting in God on the basis of his mercifulness proved in Jesus Christ and confessing the salvific work of God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Yet this faith is never alone. It includes other acts
The same thing was recognized in a document written a few years ago under the auspices of the (Catholic) German Conference of Bishops and the bishops of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (the Lutheran church). The purpose of the document, titled The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide?, was to determine which of the sixteenth-century Catholic and Protestant condemnations are still applicable to the other party. Thus the joint committee which drafted the document went over the condemnations from Trent and assessed which of them no longer applied to Lutherans and the condemnations of the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles, etc., and assesses which of them are not applicable to Catholics.
When it came to the issue of justification by faith alone, the document concluded:
"[T]oday the difference about our interpretation of faith is no longer a reason for mutual condemnation . . . even though in the Reformation period it was seen as a profound antithesis of ultimate and decisive force. By this we mean the confrontation between the formulas 'by faith alone,' on the one hand, and 'faith, hope, and love,' on the other.
"We may follow Cardinal Willebrand and say: 'In Luther's sense the word 'faith' by no means intends to exclude either works or love or even hope. We may quite justly say that Luther's concept of faith, if we take it in its fullest sense, surely means nothing other than what we in the Catholic Church term love' (1970, at the General Assembly of the World Lutheran Federation in Evian).
If we take all this to heart, we may say the following: If we translate from one language to another, then Protestant talk about justification through faith corresponds to Catholic talk about justification through grace; and on the other hand, Protestant doctrine understands substantially under the one word 'faith' what Catholic doctrine (following 1 Cor. 13:13) sums up in the triad of 'faith, hope, and love.' But in this case the mutual rejections in this question can be viewed as no longer applicable today
"According to [Lutheran] Protestant interpretation, the faith that clings unconditionally to God's promise in Word and Sacrament is sufficient for righteousness before God, so that the renewal of the human being, without which there can be no faith, does not in itself make any contribution to justification. Catholic doctrine knows itself to be at one with the Protestant concern in emphasizing that the renewal of the human being does not 'contribute' to justification, and is certainly not a contribution to which he could make any appeal before God. Nevertheless it feels compelled to stress the renewal of the human being through justifying grace, for the sake of acknowledging God's newly creating power; although this renewal in faith, hope, and love is certainly nothing but a response to God's unfathomable grace. Only if we observe this distinction can we say in all truth: Catholic doctrine does not overlook what Protestant faith finds so important, and vice versa; and Catholic doctrine does not maintain what Protestant doctrine is afraid of, and vice versa.
"In addition to concluding that canons 9 and 12 of the Decree on Justification did not apply to modern Protestants, the document also concluded that canons 1-13, 16, 24, and 32 do not apply to modern Protestants (or at least modern Lutherans)."
During the drafting of this document, the Protestant participants asked what kind of authority it would have in the Catholic Church, and the response given by Cardinal Ratzinger (who was the Catholic corresponding head of the joint commission) was that it would have considerable authority. The German Conference of Bishops is well-known in the Catholic Church for being very cautious and orthodox and thus the document would carry a great deal of weight even outside of Germany, where the Protestant Reformation started.
Furthermore, the Catholic head of the joint commission was Ratzinger himself, who is also the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, which is the body charged by the pope with protecting the purity of Catholic doctrine. Next to the pope himself, the head of the CDF is the man most responsible for protecting orthodox Catholic teaching, and the head of the CDF happened to be the Catholic official with ultimate oversight over the drafting of the document.
Before the joint commission met, Cardinal Ratzinger and Lutheran Bishop Eduard Lohse (head of the Lutheran church in Germany) issued a letter expressing the purpose of the document, stating:
"[O]ur common witness is counteracted by judgments passed by one church on the other during the sixteenth century, judgments which found their way into the Confession of the Lutheran and Reformed churches and into the doctrinal decisions of the Council of Trent. According to the general conviction, these so-called condemnations no longer apply to our partner today. But this must not remain a merely private persuasion. It must be established in binding form."
I say this as a preface to noting that the commission concluded that canon 9 of Trent's Decree on Justification is not applicable to modern Protestants (or at least those who say saving faith is Galatians 5 faith). This is important because canon 9 is the one dealing with the "faith alone" formula (and the one R.C. Sproul is continually hopping up and down about). It states:
"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."
The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon.
Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term "faith" in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:
"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."
And every non-antinomian Protestant would agree with this, since in addition to intellectual assent one must also repent, trust, etc.
So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns "sola fide" if it is used "so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required" to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the formula itself.
I should mention at this point that I think Trent was absolutely right in what it did and that it phrased the canon in the perfect manner to be understood by the Catholic faithful of the time. The term "faith" had long been established as referring to intellectual assent, as per Romans 14:22-23, James 2:14-26, 1 Corinthians 13:13, etc., and thus everyday usage of the formula "faith alone" had to be squashed in the Catholic community because it would be understood to mean "intellectual assent alone"
The Church could no more allow people to run around indiscriminately using the faith alone formula than it could equall confusing formulas. This formula can be given an orthodox meaning, that is not how it will be understood by the masses. There must be continuity in the language of the faithful or massive confusion will result.
In fact, one can argue that the problem of antinomianism in Protestantism is a product of the attempt by the Reformers to change the established usage of the term "faith" to include more than intellectual assent. The English verb "believe" (derived from Old High German) and the English noun "faith" (derived from French and before that Latin) were both formed under the historic Christian usage of the term "faith" and thus they connote intellectual assent.
This is a deeply rooted aspect of the English language, which is why Protestant evangelists have to labor so hard at explaining to the unchurched why "faith alone" does not mean "intellectual assent alone." They have to work so hard at this because they are bucking the existing use of the language; the Reformers effort to change the meanings of the terms "believe" and "faith" have not borne significant fruit outside of the Protestant community.
This is also the reason Evangelical preaching often tragically slips into antinomianism. The historic meaning of the terms "believe" and "faith," which are still the established meanings outside the Protestant community, tend to reassert themselves in the Protestant community when people aren't paying attention, and antinomianism results.
This reflects one of the tragedies of the Reformation. If the Reformers had not tried to overturn the existing usage of the term "faith" and had only specified it further to formed faith, if they had only adopted the slogan "iustificatio sola fide formata" instead of "iustificatio sola fide," then all of this could have been avoided. The Church would have embraced the formula, the split in Christendom might possibly have been avoided, and we would not have a problem with antinomianism today.
So I agree a hundred percent with what Trent did. The existing usage of the term "faith" in connection with justification could not be overturned any more than the existing usage of the term "God" in connection with Jesus' identity could be overturned.
What both communities need to do today, now that a different usage has been established in them, is learn to translate between each others languages. Protestants need to be taught that the Catholic formula "salvation by faith, hope, and charity" is equivalent to what they mean by "faith alone." And Catholics need to be taught that (at least for the non-antinomians) the Protestant formula "faith alone" is equivalent to what they mean by "faith, hope, and charity."
It would be nice if the two groups could reconverge on a single formula, but that would take centuries to develop, and only as a consequence of the two groups learning to translate each others' theological vocabularies first. Before a reconvergence of language could take place, the knowledge that the two formulas mean the same thing would first need to be as common as the knowledge that English people drive on the left-hand side of the road instead of on the right-hand side as Americans do. That is not going to happen any time soon, but for now we must do what we can in helping others to understand what the two sides are saying.
(Needless to say, this whole issue of translating theological vocabularies is very important to me since I have been both a committed Evangelical and a committed Catholic and thus have had to learn to translate the two vocabularies through arduous effort in reading theological dictionaries, encyclopedias, systematic theologies, and Church documents. So I feel like banging my head against a wall whenever I hear R.C. Sproul and others representing canon 9 as a manifest and blatant condemnation of Protestant doctrine, or even all Protestants, on this point.)
The fact "faith" is normally used by Catholics to refer to intellectual assent (as in Romans 14:22-23, 1 Corinthians 13:13, and James 2:14-26) is one reason Catholics do not use the "faith alone" formula even though they agree with what (better) Protestants mean by it. The formula runs counter to the historic meaning of the term "faith."
The other reason is that, frankly, the formula itself (though not what it is used to express) is flatly unbiblical. The phrase "faith alone" (Greek, pisteos monon), occurs exactly once in the Bible, and there it is rejected:
"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jas. 2:24)"
Without going into the subject of what kind of justification is being discussed here (which is misunderstood by most Evangelical commentators on Catholicism, see below), the phrase "faith alone" is itself rejected. Even though Protestants can give the phrase orthodox theological content, the phrase itself is unbiblical. If we wish to conform our theological language to the language of the Bible, we need to conform our usage of the phrase "faith alone" to the use of that phrase in the Bible.
Thus, if we are to conform our language to the language of the Bible, we need to reject usage of the formula "faith alone" while at the same time preaching that man is justified "by faith and not by works of the Law" (which Catholics can and should and must and do preach, as Protestants would know if they read Catholic literature). James 2:24 requires rejection of the first formula while Romans 3:28 requires the use of the second.
Copyright (c) 1996 by James Akin. All Rights Reserved.
This would mean one was 100% saved by your works, as a maintenance of your salvation that would make it would be 100% works . Are you comfortable with a salvation by "works alone" ?
The verses other than from St. Paul you gave me refer to the elect whom Christ knows outside of time. It is true that some but not all will be saved. We cannot conclude anything about the way of life required of a Christian from these verses. The verse from St. Paul's Romans refers to the works of Jewish law, rather than the works of charity that Christ very clearly commanded us to do.
As opposed to your mandatory works of maintenance?
Please give me a CLEAR scripture where Jesus teaches that one must come in faith and works to be saved,
Please show me a teaching of paul or peter that Faith MUST be mixed with work for salvation
Jesus did not hide the gospel He preached it, as did the apostles and disciples. If you can not produce a few texts where they CLEARLY taught the need for works to be added to faith it would mean that God intentionally hid the means of salvation. Do you believe that ?
Paul used those words to describe his own ministry
Cr 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1Cr 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
. I--the preacher: as 1Cr 2:2 describes the subject, "Christ crucified," and 1Cr 2:4 the mode of preaching: "my speech . . . not with enticing words," "but in demonstration of the Spirit."
weakness--personal and bodily ( 2Cr 10:10 12:7, 9 Gal 4:13 ).
trembling--(compare Phl 2:12 ). Not personal fear, but a trembling anxiety to perform a duty; anxious conscientiousness, as proved by the contrast to "eye service" ( Eph 6:5 ) [CONYBEARE and HOWSON].
I remember when I did retreat work , I always came with fear and trembling, not fearful for my salvation... but that I do well and honor God.
You can not pick a scripture out of context and disregard the audience and purpose and use it as a proof text.
Philippians was written to the saved as encouragement and instruction in living a life that testifies to Christ in them
Amen Brother, I am in awe of all the word of God, the means God uses to bring faith ..Praise His name !
Careful you are sounding like a Calvinist and of course you are right.
'He is the author and finisher of our faith"
"Salvation is of our God"
Psa 18:2 The LORD [is] my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, [and] my high tower
Psa 62:7 In God [is] my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, [and] my refuge, [is] in God.
Here are some notes on faith from a dispensational perspective. Four doctrines of election, justification, faith, and sanctification strongly influence denominational differences. I may discuss those a bit later, but I believe you may find these notes to be helpful in conjunction with Scriptural study through faith in Christ.
DOCTRINE OF FAITH
Eph 483, 2/19/87; 5/8/77; Rom 10:8 4/13/79; Eph 172 12/8/85
A. Definition.
1. Basically there are three systems of human perception.
a. Faith is a non-meritorious system of perception based on confidence in the authority and the veracity of another. Faith is not based on one's own knowledge, as is rationalism or empiricism.
b. Rationalism is reason from the source of knowledge in itself, superior to and independent of any other source of perception. Rationalism says that reality is what you think to be true. Rationalism requires a high I.Q., from which systems of philosophy are often developed.
c. Empiricism is knowledge from perception by observation and experience rather than by theory. All ideas are derived from some sensuous experience using the eyes, ears, nose, touch, etc, having no innate or a priori conceptions.
2. Perception by faith is always non-meritorious. It depends on the authority, veracity, and ability of someone else. Faith requires authority.
3. Faith also means a system of doctrine or a creed perceived by faith; i.e., what is believed.
B. Etymology.
1. Hebrew.
a. The verb AMAN means to believe, to support, to use someone as a prop, a crutch; to use someone else to be supported. The root meaning is a foundation on which you build something.
(1) In Isa 28:16, the hiphil means to cause to believe. The hiphil in Gen 15:6 uses AMAN for the salvation of Abraham, meaning to use God as a prop and foundation.
(2) Further, AMAN means to prove oneself, to stay faithful to, to remain or continue.
(3) Metaphorically, AMAN means to be faithful, trustworthy, and sure, as in Prov 19:8; Gen 42:20; 1 Kg 8:26; Hos 5:9.
b. The noun EMUNAH means faithfulness, security, or that on which security is based, e.g., the integrity of God.
c. The noun EMUN means integrity, fidelity, reliability.
d. The noun OMEN means doctrine, truth, faithfulness.
e. The noun EMETH means faithfulness, integrity, stability.
f. The verb BATACH is a wrestling term, which means to trust in the sense of slamming your troubles on God; this has a faith-rest connotation. In Ps 37:3, 91:2, also means to confide in someone.
g. The verb CHASAH means to hide in the cleft of a rock, as a rabbit does when chased by a fox. This verb is used for suffering and adversity. It means to trust in the sense of taking shelter or taking refuge in Bible doctrine; to believe in the integrity of God, Ps 57:1, 2:12, 5:12, 25:20, 7:1.
h. The verb JACHAL means to trust the Lord in time of great pain or disaster, Lam 3:21,24. In Job 13:15, it means to have hope and to wait. It is used for faith under great pressure, intense suffering, and pain.
i. The verb QAWAH is the strongest word for faith, used in Ps 25:3. It depicts a fine thread woven into a giant rope that cannot be broken. It is used in Isa 40:31 for the faith of a mature believer. In Lam 3:25 it means to wait. This word means that faith which gets its strength from outside of itself, connoting the non-meritorious aspect of faith. All merit lies in the object of faith.
2. Greek.
a. The noun PISTIS.
(1) Used as an attribute, PISTIS is what causes trust or faith, reliability, faithfulness, or integrity, Tit 2:10; 2 Thes 1:4.
(2) In the active sense, PISTIS means faith, confidence, trust, faith as a recognition of and acceptance of Bible doctrine. In the active sense, faith is used in three ways.
(a) Saving faith, Eph 2:8; 1 Jn 5:4-5.
(b) The three stages of the faith-rest drill, Rom 3:20; Heb 4:3.
(c) The metabolization of Bible doctrine.
(3) The passive meaning of PISTIS is Bible doctrine, meaning that which is believed, i.e., doctrine, the body of belief, which is obedience to authority. PISTIS is so translated "doctrine" is such passages as Gal 1:23; 2 Pet 1:5; 1 Tim 1:19, 4:1,6; Heb 11.
b. The noun PISTOS, used as an adjective in the passive sense means being trustworthy, worthy of trust, faithful, dependable, and inspiring trust. In the active sense, it means trusting or believing.
c. The verb PISTEUO means to believe, to trust something to someone, to use someone as an object of faith, Gal 2:16. It only takes a little more than no faith at all to be saved, Acts 16:31.
d. The verb PEITHO in the passive means to come to believe, to obey, to be persuaded or convinced. The perfect passive means to have confidence, to be absolutely convinced, to be certain. The active meaning as in Gal 1:10 means to convince, to persuade, to appeal, to win over. The perfect tense with a present meaning means to depend on someone, to trust in someone, to have confidence.
e. The verb PISTOO means to show oneself faithful; to be convinced; to have confidence, 2 Tim 3:14.
C. Biblical Use of "Faith" or PISTIS.
1. PISTIS is used for doctrine in Heb 11:1-3. "In fact, doctrine is the reality from which we keep receiving confidence, the proof of matters not being seen; for by means of doctrine men of old gained approval."
2. A description of faith is found in 2 Cor 4:18. "We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen [essence of God]; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal." Faith is the means by which we perceive reality in the invisible essence of God.
3. Sometimes both the faith-rest technique and doctrine are described in the meaning of PISTIS, as in 2 Cor 5:7. "We walk by faith and not by sight." Your eyes are in your soul, and your soul must have Bible doctrine. We see the unseen through doctrine. Doctrine gives us relationship with the integrity of God, which sustains us in time of disaster. We see the justice and integrity of God through doctrine.
4. Heb 11:6, "And without doctrine resident in the soul, it is impossible to please God, for when one is occupied with God, he must be convinced that He is and that He becomes a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
5. Rom 10:17, "Doctrine comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
6. Gal 5:22, "The fruit of the Spirit is doctrine."
7. In each verse above, PISTIS relates faith to the perception of Bible doctrine. PISTIS means both faith and doctrine. All perception of doctrine is accomplished through the function of faith perception.
8. 1 Tim 1:19 and 4:1 use PISTIS for the doctrine of demons.
D. Faith is the means of salvation adjustment to the justice of God.
1. Believing is non-meritorious perception. The merit is always found in the object of faith (Jesus Christ) and not in the subject, the one having the faith (the believer).
2. That salvation is by faith and faith alone in Jesus Christ is documented in many passages, including Acts 16:31; Jn 3:16,18-19,36 6:47, 20:31; Rom 3:22,28, 4:5, 9:30; Gal 2:16, 3:26; 1 Jn 3:23, 5:4-5. Salvation adjustment to the justice of God is believing in Christ.
3 The justice of God is our point of contact with the essence of God because justice judged our sins in Christ on the cross. The mechanics of receiving all blessing from the justice of God is grace. Grace is non-meritorious, compatible with faith, Eph 2:8-9.
E. Faith is a system of doctrine or what is believed.
1. The object of faith is Bible doctrine. This includes both doctrine in perception and in application. Bible doctrine is invisible. Faith is confidence in the unseen. Bible doctrine must be transferred to our right lobe by means of faith.
2. The perception concept is related to post-salvation epistemological rehabilitation. The application concept is related to the faith-rest drill or reverse concentration.
3. Once you have Bible doctrine on the launching pad of your soul, then the faith-rest drill in its maximum use applies doctrine to experience.
4. Maturity adjustment to the justice of God demands maximum Bible doctrine in the right lobe, which comes through the daily perception, metabolization, and application of Bible doctrine.
5. The intake of Bible doctrine results in maximum blessing to your soul. Blessing does not come because of your self-righteousness, personality, good works, or anything else.
F. The Object of Faith.
1. The object of faith always has the merit. There is no merit in the subject because faith is a non-meritorious system of perception.
2. All the faith in the world secures nothing but condemnation from the integrity of God. We are born with faith. We first learn vocabulary by faith.
3. However, the tiniest bit of faith in Christ secures eternal salvation. It only takes a little more faith than no faith at all. It is the object of faith that counts, not the worthiness of the one with faith.
4. There is no merit in believing; the merit lies in the object of faith.
5. For salvation adjustment to the justice of God, the object of faith is Jesus Christ. For maturity adjustment to the justice of God, the object of faith is Bible doctrine.
6. Faith is not something we do, but it is the channel by which we appropriate what God has done for us.
7. For rebound adjustment to the justice of God, the object of faith is two-fold, depending on the believer's spiritual growth.
a. The Scripture is the object of faith for the immature believer, 1 Jn 1:9; 1 Cor 11:31; Ps 35, 32:5, 38:18; Prov 28:13.
b. For the mature believer, doctrine is the object of faith, and the integrity of God is the basis for understanding the forgiveness of our sins through rebound.
8. Through these adjustments to the justice of God and blessings from the integrity of God, Jesus Christ becomes the author and finisher of our faith, Heb 12:2.
G. The Application of Faith in the Function of the Faith-Rest Drill.
1. Faith must be exercised as it develops. Learning doctrine develops faith. As this occurs, faith has the increasing ability of perception, of learning more and greater details in the Word of God, Heb 4:1-3.
2. God has blessing which will only be yours if you relate totally to the integrity of God by learning doctrine, 1 Pet 1:7-8.
3. Bible doctrine is the royal family's currency. Bible doctrine is the working currency in the life of every believer. Learning doctrine gives you currency to understand the integrity of God.
4. Abraham's circumcision is the classical illustration of the mature believer with maximum adjustment to the justice of God making application of his faith, Rom 4:17-21. Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was the proof or testing of his mature faith, Gen 22:1-18.
5. The mechanics of the faith-rest drill comprise three stages.
a. Stage one: Faith claims promises from the Bible, Heb 4:1-3, which can be called mixing the promises of God with faith.
b. Stage two: Faith claims doctrinal rationales, like the essence of God rationale, the plan of God rationale, the logistical grace rationale, the a fortiori rationale, the escrow/election rationale, etc. This stage is known as reverse concentration, the application of doctrine.
c. Stage three: Faith reaches doctrinal conclusions and is in control of the situation. This becomes the function of spiritual self esteem. It is the third stage of the faith-rest drill that brings you to spiritual self-esteem.
H. The Victory of Faith, 1 Jn 5:4-5.
Relationship with the integrity of God is greater than any pressure or disaster in life. It is more important than anything in life, whether failures, successes, pressures, or prosperity.
(c) 1989, by R. B. Thieme, Jr. All rights reserved.
Again, on this thread I would like to limit the discussion on the definition of "faith." For Catholics it means only intellectual assent. Mr. Lucky and gscc seemed to imply that for Protestants that it also included in some form a commitment to righteousness. Mr. Akin's article also held for this and argued that Catholics and Protestants were saying the same things but using different theological terms (or in the case of the word "faith" the same term with different meanings).
I would like the following questions to be answered:
1) Is there any validity in this position?2) Is this valid for some Protestants and not others?
3) If so, is there a division in Protestant understanding of "faith" that is specific to particular Protestant denominations or does this division cut across Protestant denominations?
Different meanings in different contexts. See the etymology above and compare the translations in different passages.
There is, or course, no monolithic "Protestant" position on any issue. Many "Protestant" Churches (such as the orthodox Lutheran Church or the pre-sodomite Episcopal Church) are much closer to the Roman Catholic Church theologically than they are to most other Protestant denominations).
No, that would not mean that. I need to steer my car in order to get where I am going and preserve the car, but my driving did not make the car, Toyota did.
give me a CLEAR scripture
I did. #15. If that is not clear, you cannot comprehend the scripture.
I can see that you and I will probably never agree as to what is a Biblical fact or not.
As a side question, Do you know for sure where you will spend eternity when you die? If you don't want to clog up this forum, feel free to freepmail me.
Shalom
"Obeying God's command to believe (have faith) in His Son (the One which He has sent) ... is the only response which God requires from man ... so as to bestow His gift of salvation. "
God requires that we obey all of his commands.
And ... who can hope to accomplish this ... in this life ?
Do you ?
Do you truly believe that your salvation depends upon your perfect execution of God's Will ?
Wasn't that Jesus' task ?
Going on to your scriptural reference ...Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?This episode in Jesus' ministry has always struck me as one where Jesus is really saying more ... than it appears He is saying.
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
For instance ... when the young man first comes to Jesus, ... and greets Him by saying ... "Good Master, ... " and Jesus responds firstly, to the young man's question by saying ... "Why do you call Me good ? ... for there is only One Who is good, ... and that is God ... "
Now we (thats Protestants and Catholics) ... who believe in the Deity of Jesus ... can understand that Jesus is here making an implicit reference to His own deity.
AFter all .. the correct answer to the question posed by Jesus is ... "Well ... You are God, after all, ... so there's no problem in calling you good."
Well ... I believe that Jesus is making the same of implicit statement ... when He answers the young man's question about what he must do to have eternal life.
He says to the young man ... "Obey the commandments ... "
This, actually, is exactly the answer to to the question that the young man asked ..."What good deed must I do to have eternal life.What Jesus, essentially, says to him is ... "Well, if you are going to do it ... you must be perfect."
And as an example of how that young man could not live perfectly, ... when Jesus asked him to sell all that he had to give to the poor, ... the young man balked, and went away sadly, ... for he knew that he could not do it himself. It was impossible for him.
After Jesus explained to His disciples regarding the difficulty for a rich man to get into heaven, ... His disciples got the message too.
If the ultimate challenge to obey God perfectly would be similar to the young man's challenge to give up his riches, ... then the disciples understood that such was an impossibilty.
They said to Jesus ...Matthew 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.So ... the true lesson here is that ... if you're depending upon yourself for your salvation, you're in an impossible situation.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
OTOH, ... if you're depending on God for your salvation, ... the impossible has just become a sure thing.
Without God we can do nothing, and through faith, we act obediently to God and cooperate with his Grace. If we are to conform to the language of the bible, however, this faith, does not stand alone ...And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (1Cor 13:2)Love ... is the context for salvation.
God loves us ... and thus, He saves us.
And we are saved ... to love ... God and our neighbor.
Love is the Source ... and Love is the goal.
The imperative for the saved individual ... is love.
If one does not manifest love, ... than it can be fairly reasoned that one has not received that gift of love from God.
God loved us, ... and now, empowered with that Love, ... we love God (in return) and others.
Beautiful post, Questor. I needed that. Thank you.
There are no people walking around in the New Testament asking each other, "when did you git saved?" Perhaps someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but there were probably no people who held that belief before the 1800's, and I'll bet that one is an American Invention.
Peter certainly treats the idea of having been saved as a 'fait accompli' ...1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Rather like the Deist clock analogy ? God winds it up and just lets it run?
Your analogy is this
I am fully in charge of the car. What happens to the car is all my responsibility.
THAT is salvation by MY steering ( works) , 100%
James 2 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers and sending them out another way? 26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead.
THAT is NOT a salvation scripture.
The Epistles were written to the SAVED. This was a letter on how to LIVE your life in a way that men could see it (let your light SO SHINE BEFORE MEN)
Jam 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory, with respect of persons.
Jam 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
What was James teaching the church?
Jam 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?
Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
show me thy faith without thy works--if thou canst; but thou canst not SHOW, that is, manifest or evidence thy alleged ( Jam 2:14 , "say") faith without works. "Show" does not mean here to prove to me, but exhibit to me. Faith is unseen save by God. To show faith to man, works in some form or other are needed: we are justified judicially by God ( Rom 8:33 ); meritoriously, by Christ ( Isa 53:11 ); mediately, by faith ( Rom 5:1 ); evidentially, by works. The question here is not as to the ground on which believers are justified, but about the demonstration of their faith:
A. R. FAUSSETT
Would you please define the word Mercy for me ?
Also I still await a scripture that TEACHES Salvation is WORK and FAITH .
Surely Jesus would have taught that , surely it would have been preached in Acts. The Holy Spirit reveals truth H does not hide it
Amen Brother.
The law reflects the Holiness of God that not one of us could live out.
God gave men the commandments to reveal His Holiness and His standard and to show men that they are sinners in need of a Savior
No man could keep that Law . Christ did for us what we could not do for ourselves .
Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men [and] brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster
Those that try to steer their own car and save themselves by works need to consider the words of Paul
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
I ask any reader that has never asked the Spirit of God to reveal the truth of the Gospel to do so . Ask for faith to believe.
I will show you that when you show me the verse that mentions the Trinity. Scripture interprets scripture. I am sure most in this discussion are Trinitarians - if you hang you hat on doing a word search of the term Trinity in Holy Scriptures you are plain out of luck and through your logic the belief in the Trinity is to be found nowhere in scripture and therefore not scriptural.
Your continuous harping that the doctrine of Salvation by faith alone is not in the Scriptures is the point of the article. Your assertions that Martin Luther's doctrine is an "invention" is nothing other than RC talking points. One of the contentions that Luther had to deal with was RC practice beyond RC doctrine. I asked you in another thread about Urban II's granting of the forgiveness of sins if a Crusader died during the Crusades. This was clearly granting forgiveness of sins based on works only and did not take into consideration the condition of an individual commitment in faith to the Lord Jesus Christ. The granting of indulgences clearly was a works oriented practice. If you want me to renounce a clinical, intellectual assent to faith I would have no problem with that because I have clearly stated in other posts and believe as the author states that where you are having difficulty is the understanding the definition of faith. I suggested that we were talking past each other - and you continue to prove my point.
I thank you very much for this post. On this issue there is a great deal of skepticism on both sides as to motives, with the result that we continuously pound on the talking points that we have been grounded in theologically. As the previous thread developed I began to feel that at least you and I, on this issue anyway, were really not that far apart and through God's illuminating hand you came up with this article.
One day I was having a discussion with a college classmate from England about public vs. private education. Normally we were in close agreement about political and social matters. In this instance, however, we were arguing against each other. We were both becoming exasperated as to why the other could not understand the points that we were making. Then, in the middle of the conversation, my English friend asked me to define what I meant by a "public school". It turned out that what is called a "public school" in the U.S. is called a "state school" in England. What the English call a "public school" we call a "private school". Thus we were actually agreeing on the policy but we did not realize it because we were using the term "public school" with two different meanings.
I think that between the Catholics and the Lutherans (am I correct in thinking that you, gscc, are Lutheran like Mr. Lucky?) we may have been doing the same thing for some five hundred years when we talk about faith. One problem, though, is that there are some Protestants who, perhaps making the same mistake concerning Luther's usage of the term "faith" it seems that Catholics have, do seem indeed to have reduces "faith alone" to a mere intellectual assent to God. Thus is becomes difficult to present the Catholic understanding when in a single thread there is not just a different usage between Catholics and Protestants but also between the Protestants themselves. Or is it that there are some Protestants that are more interested in proving that Catholics are wrong than in coming to a mutual understanding?
I cannot speak for their meaning of the term "faith" of the various Protestant denominations or theological schools. That is why I asked that the other posters on this thread could address this to see if the dispute on this issue was real or not.
I would like to thank the two of you for your remarks. I would also be interested to know if you thought that there were any deficiencies in Mr. Akin's analysis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.