How is one saved?
What are your arguments for "by faith alone"? And, perhaps more importantly, what do you mean by faith?
"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2.24, NASB). And "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (Romans 3.28, NASB). Paul and James seem to disagree sharply, though they do not. Together, then, what are they saying? The danger of "faith alone" is that we can believe that faith is simple intellectual assent. But faith as intellectual assent does not save, does it?
Also, what does Paul mean by "works of the Law"? Is he simply stating that works do not save, or is he saying something else entirely?
What do the Scriptures teach?
13 comments:
I'm not very good on the bible, unfortunately...
But I've heard it quoted, something like "faith without works is dead".
We can think ourselves holy, for instance, and that doesn't make us holy. We need to walk the walk. To be "saved" -- a big Protestant concept -- Christ saved us ALL at his death on the Cross. Salvation doesn't have a "key" to it, intellectual or otherwise. I think of faith as a gift and by assenting to that gift we are bound to do works that portray our faith...
I'm not a Catholic theologian though...but I'm Catholic.
Confirmation is when I think most protestants would presume Catholics "become saved" because it is the time we give our assent to our Faith. We agree to become "soldiers of Christ".
The proof is in the pudding. If one's faith is genuine, then works will follow.
Works without faith is like the Pharisees who were caught up with playing a role. They were working on their personal academy award.
It starts with faith alone, then works are a natural result, and so is a changed heart and life.
I think of salvation in the past, present, and future all sewn up around the time the Spirit revealed my need for Jesus.
Firstly, what do you mean by "saved"? Is saved going to heaven when you die? Is that what was first and foremost on the minds of 1st century Jews in Roman-occupied Israel? Does it mean something else entirely, or does it incorporate 'heaven' and much, much more?
I think that part of why I struggle with some questions like this is that our usage of the words may not correspond to the meaning intended by the biblical authors; not that we've got it wrong, necessarily, but rather I wonder if we place the emphasis on different aspects, highlighting some and neglecting others. We can certainly read the Scriptures as saying that you need to believe in God according to a certain formula - intellectual assent, perhaps - in order to go to heaven when you die, but is that an accurate picture of what Jesus taught? Where is all his talk of the Kingdom that was at hand? Has that become a metaphor for heaven somehow?
In his letter to the Romans, Paul is obsessed with the notion of covenant membership; how does one enter into the covenant, and how ought one live once one is there. I don't think that he was fighting the battle of the reformation, and I doubt he would have coined the phrase 'Sola Fide' - indeed, Sola Fide is a stance taken in opposition to another stance (IMHO), an application of Scripture to a contemporary (reformation) problem, rather than (strictly speaking) an exposition of what Paul was actually saying. In my humble, perhaps even slightly heretical, opinion. But when we take that great reformation slogan and try to use it as a lens for understanding the scriptures apart from the circumstances in which the slogan was coined, we tie ourselves up in knots.
None of which has answered your question. For which I apologise!! I will try to get back to it tonight.
Wow. Good thoughts, Ross.
Thanks, all of you, for your thoughts and comments.
Ross, I look forward to your hashing out this issue. Sometimes I get so turned around because of a particular argument I'm engaged in that I forget which way is up. And sometimes I feel as if I just don't fully fit into any one faith tradition - and I want to so badly because it would hurt so much less. Anyway, I appreciate your comment. It's difficult to not get caught up in the individualization (exclusively) of salvation when, in actuality, it is far bigger than just me.
Even many non-catholic scholars recognize that the phrase "works of law" means something other than merely "good works". The phrase is used in the Dead Sea Scrolls for ritual rites - not good deeds. Paul is talking about circumcision and other Jewish rites or "works of law". Look at the context and you'll see this is so.
By the way, this was the opinion of fathers and doctors of the church, such as Thomas Aquinas, who lived back in the 13th century.
Thanks, Michael. I think you're right. From the context of the text, it seems clear that Paul is discussing whether Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians. His conclusion, I believe, is that circumcision is no longer the sign of covenant membership, but rather faith.
This, of course, does not exclude righteous living.
To avoid confusion - I in no way believe that we merit the gift of grace or faith. But that true faith works through love (Gal 5.6).
And I just realized that I am making little or no sense. Just ignore me, your life will be better for it.
You're making lots of sense, Scott. Plenty have thought through the same issues, looked at the Reformation forumas, and with a contorted face exclaimed:
"wha?"
Including myself. God bless you as you figure this all out. But you are not alone (cue x-files theme)
I'd be glad to give you a detailed defense of Sola Fide, unfortunately it is late here and I have just stumbled across your blog through a chain of blogs. What John Calvin says in his Institutes is perhaps the best explanation. It goes something along the lines of (as I paraphrased it in a paper) "Faith is the firm and unwavering knowledge of God the Father’s good intentions towards the believer which is based on Christ’s death as a sacrifice for sins." Faith is to understand that God loves you, has the power to justify you, and gave His Son for your redemption. I greatly apologize that I couldn't give a more throrough explanation, but I hope this will be satisfactory or at least encourage you to look into the many resources of protestantism.
Chad, thanks for your encouragement.
Gavin, I'd enjoy reading your detailed defense of sola fide. If it would be easier for you, send it via my e-mail: sweptover[at]gmail[dot]com
Post a Comment