Why is sola fide important?

gotquestions.org ^ | unknown | Got Questions Ministries

[metmom]

NO man has the power to forgive sin. That belongs to God alone and HE is the only one we need to go to for forgiveness as HE is the One whom we sinned against.

Rome in its arrogance and lust for power and control over people takes a phrase of a verse and builds a whole doctrine on it.

The epitome of cherry picking.

[terycarl]

Oh, I don’t know. Will you agree to listen and be civil in our discussions? Or will you just repeat Catholic talking points with overwhelming arrogance and condescension? Because I’m not going to waste my time casting pearls before swine if it’s the latter. If you want arrogance and condescending behavior, you can have all of it you want.,.i>

Interesting post.....when you're wrong, you're wrong.....when you're right, you're right.......I'm right. and I have 2,017 years of church history to back me up......do you really suppose that Ch4ist would have allowed 1,600 years of erroneous teaching to occur before He ordained Martin Luther to correct the situation????????? I don't think so.

[metmom]

You’re speaking for all 1.2 billion Catholics in the world and Catholics for all time that you KNOW what’s in their mind and KNOW that they do not worship images?

Did you poll all of them?

Otherwise, how do you know what’s in their hearts?

[Zuriel]

Most, if not all??

Then it should be quick and easy for you to mention the ones that might fall under you statement.

I’ll even help! Here’s the first two: assumption, and perpetual virginity.

[metmom]

Actually only ONE describes anything Biblical.

All the rest are man-made Roman traditions.

[terycarl]

In the fullness of time, God sent a Catholic priest, Blessed Father Luther, opened his eyes to Scripture and the sin plaguing the church in Rome, and recovered His glorious Gospel of Grace. “Thanks be to God, for His Indescribable gift!”

Oh, good grief....if that satisfies you....O.K., I guess.....chuckle.

[terycarl]

Whatever Bible it is that you are reading, but surely not the one God inspired. Those words are not in there.

I read the original one like you used to do....not the one with verses changed or worse yet, removed

[Zuriel]

Oops. Too big a hurry. I meant the few that don’t fall under your statement of “most, if not all”.

Past bedtime.

[af_vet_1981]

Keeping the Ten Commandments is so simple even a child could do it; those who love the LORD Jesus Christ keep His commandments; those who do not love Him do not keep His commandments.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 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. 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, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 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. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 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. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

...

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Matthew, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses sixteen to thirty,

John, Catholic chapter fourteen, Protestant verses twenty one to twenty four,

as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[MHGinTN]

Oaky, Jester, what were the TWO commandments JESUS gave that HE said contained all the laws and prophets?

[MHGinTN]

If I did not agape you, old man (I’m one too), I wouldn’t keep after you.

[Luircin]

I have NO idea what point you’re trying to make in either of your last posts.

[boatbums]

Some don’t know that luther changed the Bible by adding the word “alone.”

You have been shown the truth about this SO many, many times yet you continue to spout this nonsense! Please, for once, read the following and if you disagree with what is stated, THEN dispute that. Don't you know people who keep telling falsehoods lose any credibility they might have - especially when they refuse to learn the actual facts?

Here are the facts about Luther's translation of Romans 3:28 from http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html:

How to respond:

1. First, locate the context. The main text of Luther used for these type of comments are his Open Letter on Translating (1530). Luther says in the introduction:

“…there has been much discussion about the translating of the Old and New Testaments. It has been charged by the enemies of truth that the text has been modified and even falsified in many places, which has startled and shocked many simple Christians, even among the educated who do not know the Hebrew and Greek languages. It is devoutly to be hoped that with this publication the slander of the godless will be stopped and the scruples of the devout removed, at least in part. Perhaps it may even give rise to more writing on such questions and matters such as these. Therefore I ask all lovers of the truth to take this work to heart seriously, and faithfully to pray to God for a right understanding of the divine Scriptures, to the improvement and increase of our common Christendom.”

The first section of the treatise is actually fairly angry, sarcastic, and humorous. Luther shows himself fed up with his Papal critics. His anger was fueled against them for an ironic reason- they rallied against his translation, while at the same time utilizing it for their own new translations. A strong Papal critic of Luther (Emser) did just that:

“We have seen that scribbler from Dresden play the master to my New Testament. I will not mention his name again in my books, as he has his Judge now, and is already well-known. He admits that my German is sweet and good. He saw that he could not improve upon it. Yet, eager to dishonor it, he took my New Testament nearly word for word as it was written, and removed my prefaces and notes, replaced them with his own, and thus published my New Testament under his name!”

2. Put this context into the quotes being misued. With this context in mind, point out that Luther was blasting away at his Papal critics:

“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing." …For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.”

“I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, “I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands his Aristotle. If any one of them can correctly understand one preface or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it, for I have been schooled in and have practiced their science from my youth. I recognize how deep and broad it is. They, too, are well aware that I can do everything they can do. Yet they treat me as a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach and know. How they do brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago! To all their noise and shouting I sing, with the harlot, "I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”

“Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: "Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope." Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are.”

One can almost feel Luther’s anger towards his Papal critics. They discredited him as a doctor of theology, a degree he earned in a rather quick period of time, and his academic abilities were above most. Indeed, he had done the work necessary to be taken seriously. His critics criticized his German translation while at the same time stealing it for their own translation- this infuriated him, and rightly so.

3. Luther's actual reasoning for using "alone" in Romans 3:28
This is the sad part about those who use Luther's Open Letter On Translating against him. He actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:

“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul's meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: "If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”

4. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-Roman Catholics ignore (and most Protestants are not aware of):

“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.” Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

Did you notice that Augustine, Aquinas and even some Catholic bibles were translated the same way???

[boatbums]

Whatever Bible it is that you are reading, but surely not the one God inspired. Those words are not in there.

I read the original one like you used to do....not the one with verses changed or worse yet, removed

Wow, TC, how'd you get your hands on an "original" Bible???That would be worth a FORTUNE! The truth is that whatever one you are reading is a TRANSLATION of the original manuscript copies that were in Hebrew and Greek. Try to be more accurate in your boasts.

[Faith Presses On]

But you left out, after we are told that we’re saved by grace through faith, that this faith is “not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Or in the Douay-Rheims, we’re saved by grace through faith “not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; Not of works, that no man may glory.” Those are the words of God, are they not? The words in James 2 are true, but so too are these words, “not of yourselves,” “it is the gift of God,” and “not of works, lest any man should boast,” “that no man may glory.”

So I accept that my salvation is a gift of God, and not of works, and by doing so, I don’t boast/glory in myself, but in the Lord. I *still* strive to live pleasing to God, to examine my life to see if I’m obeying His commands and to do good, in His eyes. I believe in what James says in James 2 and try to live by it, so that I have a living faith and not a dead one, but I believe equally in what Paul wrote in Ephesians 2. And I’m not missing out on anything to believe my faith is “the gift of God,” and “not of works, lest any man should boast.” Instead, I’ve been freed from self and given new life, and it is glorious - in Christ. That’s what I find.

I also wrote in all seriousness, and never suggested that we are saved through studying, as you say. Yet God tells us to learn from Him and to know His Word and use it against Satan. He means for us to study it to know it.

And, I was suggesting that the real issue at the heart of this question isn’t faith versus works per se, because Christians on both sides of the matter believe in some way that faith and works are necessary in some sense. So while it is beneficial to study these passages and their context, the question seems to me to come down to the question of who we believe deserves the credit for our salvation - God, ourselves or both God and ourselves. That we are “saved by grace through faith,” and that is “not of ourselves,” but is “the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should glory,” is no loss to me at all, and I do good works still because, in the next line, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

Earlier this evening, I decided to see what the Catholic Church might say about those passages in Ephesians 2, so I found a page on Catholic.com. This is what the writer says:

“We know from other passages in Paul that salvation also has present and future aspects, so the kind of salvation Paul is discussing in Ephesians 2:8-9 is initial salvation. It is the kind which we received when we first came to God and were justified, not the kind of salvation we are now receiving (cf. 1 Peter 1:8-9, Phil. 2:12) or the kind we will one day receive (cf. Rom. 13:11, 1 Cor. 3:15, 5:5).

“But the Catholic Church does not teach that we receive initial justification by good works. You do not have to do good works in order to come to God and be justified.”

Now, I still don’t agree with his arguments in this article, but this writer is attempting to respond to what’s said in Ephesians 2:8-9.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/faith-and-works

[Arthur McGowan]

Matthew 25:31-46 31”When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34”Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37”Then the righteous will answer him, ‘LORD, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40”The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41”Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44”They also will answer, ‘LORD, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45”He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46”Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

[Syncro]

So many strawman posts
So little reasoned debate
Same ol same ol diversions

[Mark17]

This type of discussion comes up so many times with the legalists.

You are correct sir. I am not into legalism.
Gal 5:4. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Salvation causes good works. People trapped in works based religions, think it is the other way around. It's quite simple.

[Mark17]

I cannot fathom the desire some people have to make life more difficult than it already is.

Do you suppose some people just don't want to go to Heaven? I can't imagine that, but sometimes I wonder.

[ealgeone]

ALL have sinned.