I strongly believe that sola fide is at the heart of many Western problems. Self-professed Christians have used it as an excuse to not care for the disadvantaged, to engage in profane sexual activity, etc. – the list goes on and on.
“Faith alone” has had a terrible impact on society. People often now shy away from discussing religion or morality with others, fearing conflict.
Well, i see another pro catholic anti-protestant hit piece while they complain when counter. I am just getting to this today, but it is Catholic "apologetics" like this that are an argument against Catholicism. Per usual, so poor is his polemic that the author effectively resorts to using a straw man that only one who is ignorant of Protestantism would believe.
The idea that sola fide teaches that conversion is simply as matter of simply pleading to the judge he concurs he is guilty and thus the judge should not do so, reduces fide to one that actually has not faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save him from his sins, and thus has no corresponding works of repentance. Which is far from what historical reformation faith taught. In which sometimes there was even a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomianism, which RCs erroneously teach sola fide basically means. As noted in an account of Puritans during the early American period,
..the essential unanimity of the New England preachers about the experience of true conversion is much more impressive than their disagreement over related issues. They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’”
Even the Genevan Reformer, John Calvin, stressed the importance of both justification and sanctification (which involves “necessary” good works). — http://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/CramptonGaryJustification.htm
Thus, rather than sola fide being at the heart of many Western problems, it is that what faith means that is the problem, that of the modern accommodationist gospel which reduces faith in the Lord Jesus to be faith in a promise giver, but not one who loves righteousness and hates iniquity, (Heb. 1:9).
One cannot believe in any Lord with moral standards without it effecting their lives toward obedience according to the knowledge they have of his will. And thus true faith and works go together, without the latter (given opportunity and ability) there is not the former, even if it is not our degree of holiness or the merit of our works done by grace that gain us acceptance with God, as per Rome.
In Rome one is said to first be counted righteousness due to the interior holiness one gain (usually) thru infant sprinkling in recognition of proxy faith, and thus such (usually) endure suffering in purgatory to become good enough to enter Heaven. Which is not what the apostles preached in Scripture.
Rome does make fine distinctions btwn types of merit, but which are lost on the laity, who most naturally believe (as man will) that their good dead and Rome's power will gain them eternal life with some mercy thrown in. And as we will see, it is the gospel that Rome most effectually conveys that results in little commitment and moral laxity, in contrast to evangelical faith the author seems to want to attack.
But rather than being good enough to morally deserve Heaven, we are souls who are bad enough to go to Hell, which one sin makes us, bur those who abase themselves as damned and destitute sinners but exalt that Lord as holy and just, and place all their faith in the Lord Jesus, are counted as righteous, accepted in the Beloved, (Rm. 4:4-6; Eph. 1:6) on Christ's account, and thus live for them.
God in His grace does reward works, counting them worthy of eternal life in the light of their works, (Mt. 25; Rv. 3:4) because these testify to faith, which faith hath great recompense of reward, (Heb. 10:35) as God is faithful to do so as part of His grace, but such is not because they are actually holy enough so as to deserve eternal life.
Protestant arguments for the belief simply do not stand in the face of such scenarios or substantial scrutiny.
Because he has yet to really present a real Protestant argument but instead makes his own straw man scenarios .
“Faith alone” has had a terrible impact on society. People often now shy away from discussing religion or morality with others, fearing conflic
Which is refuted above, while those who profess sola fide the most (evangelicals) are far more conservative and committed than the majority Rome treats as members in life and in death, as is abundantly testified to.
Martin Luther told his followers to “sin and sin boldly” (among other things, as I have documented)
If RCs spent 5% of the time examining the source and context of such as many of them do for the pope, i think most of them would not be used. James Swan in his bloghas spent much time researching these, which should be first stop when confronted with these.
And rather than actually teaching as doctrine "sin and sin boldly" (note Paul was also accused of such), Luther taught such things as
it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!
if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit.
where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works.
“This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him.
For it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present.
(Sources )
Even though I was ill-educated in theology at the time, I knew that it was illogical.
He is still ill-educated in theology, and his argument a logical fallacy.
Sola fide does not work either logically or practically; it fails on all counts. Now, you know why I hate it.
Rather, it is his polemic that fails on all counts, and i can see what he would hate an honest comparison.
In conclusion, as James said,
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. (James 2:18)
The work Roman Catholicism fosters is overall mainly liberalism and relative little commitment wherever she predominates, in contrast to the conservative evangelical faith that her apologist attacks as her greater threat. For it is not holiness that is their highest goal, but Rome's preeminence, ostensibly for the salvation of souls.
What is at the heart of many Western problems is not sola fide. Rather it's Catholics who believe they can go to mass on Sunday, take a wafer, and have God's grace imparted to them in this manner.
Those who have been saved by sola gratia understand very well what sola fide is all about.
Catholics really need to understand what Augustine meant when he stated in his prayer, "Command what you will, and grant what you command."
If one understood this prayer, they would understand both sola gratia and sola fide.