Sola fide read into the Gospels?

[ijunn]

I am becoming very confused by some debates I watched between roman catholics en James White. As Protestants we are quick to point out that salvation is by faith alone, but I can't help it that I just don't see Sola Fide in the Gospel reports. I have read some commentary's, and basicly al you get is: "true faith produces good works" so there is no contradiction. To be honest, I am beginning to find this some sort of theological gymnastics. When you read Matthew 25 for example, Jesus describing the Virgins, the talents, the last judgment (with a judgment according to works). Romans 2:6-9, where Paul also says that who does good, will be rewarded with eternal life. Particulary that verse: someone told me "yeah well true faith produces good works, so there is no contradiction", but the reformed confessions teach that even our best works can not merit eternal life. But Paul implies that it does. It makes me wonder sometimes if protestantism is doing things to the biblical texts that just aren't there. I just cannot accept a Sola Fide approach, while at the same time maintaining that faith produces good works which merit salvation at the Last judgment. It's basicly just the same as roman catholocism, just with a different twist. I hope someone has some encouraging words for me, and overreads my possible spelling errors (I am Dutch).

Thank you.

 

[Justified]

I am becoming very confused by some debates I watched between roman catholics en James White. As Protestants we are quick to point out that salvation is by faith alone, but I can't help it that I just don't see Sola Fide in the Gospel reports. I have read some commentary's, and basicly al you get is: "true faith produces good works" so there is no contradiction. To be honest, I am beginning to find this some sort of theological gymnastics. When you read Matthew 25 for example, Jesus describing the Virgins, the talents, the last judgment (with a judgment according to works). Romans 2:6-9, where Paul also says that who does good, will be rewarded with eternal life. Particulary that verse: someone told me "yeah well true faith produces good works, so there is no contradiction", but the reformed confessions teach that even our best works can not merit eternal life. But Paul implies that it does. It makes me wonder sometimes if protestantism is doing things to the biblical texts that just aren't there. I just cannot accept a Sola Fide approach, while at the same time maintaining that faith produces good works which merit salvation at the Last judgment. It's basicly just the same as roman catholocism, just with a different twist. I hope someone has some encouraging words for me, and overreads my possible spelling errors (I am Dutch).

Thank you.

One of the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantsism is what is saving faith. We, protestants, believe that we are saved by grace through faith; this faith allows the Holy Spirit to indwell us, which is the source, and power rather, of our good works. In the final judgment, we have Christ righteousness imputed upon us, so that we are presented and declared righteous. These good works are evidence that the Spirit of God is at work in believer; however, no man is justified by his own works, but rather, by the work of Christ on the cross. Catholics believe in infused righteousness; they think that along with faith they are allowed to actuality become righteous. They believe that good works 'assist' in salvation. The problem with this system is it questions the sufficiency of the cross. Imagine saying to God at the judgment, "God the blood of your only son was not enough for my sins." It's a frightening thought. I'd be happy to share more and clarify, if you have any questions. By the way, welcome to the board!

 

[Toasty]

I am becoming very confused by some debates I watched between roman catholics en James White. As Protestants we are quick to point out that salvation is by faith alone, but I can't help it that I just don't see Sola Fide in the Gospel reports. I have read some commentary's, and basicly al you get is: "true faith produces good works" so there is no contradiction. To be honest, I am beginning to find this some sort of theological gymnastics. When you read Matthew 25 for example, Jesus describing the Virgins, the talents, the last judgment (with a judgment according to works). Romans 2:6-9, where Paul also says that who does good, will be rewarded with eternal life. Particulary that verse: someone told me "yeah well true faith produces good works, so there is no contradiction", but the reformed confessions teach that even our best works can not merit eternal life. But Paul implies that it does. It makes me wonder sometimes if protestantism is doing things to the biblical texts that just aren't there. I just cannot accept a Sola Fide approach, while at the same time maintaining that faith produces good works which merit salvation at the Last judgment. It's basicly just the same as roman catholocism, just with a different twist. I hope someone has some encouraging words for me, and overreads my possible spelling errors (I am Dutch).

Thank you.

Luke 18:9-14 says, "And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The tax collector was justified by faith alone. The tax collector did not do any good deeds in order to receive a right standing before God. The tax collector was pleading for mercy from God.

 

[Toasty]

To be honest, I am beginning to find this some sort of theological gymnastics. When you read Matthew 25 for example, Jesus describing the Virgins, the talents, the last judgment (with a judgment according to works).

They way that they lived their lives indicated that they had saving faith, but this does not mean that living out the Christian life is what saves people. They had saving faith and their faith was the sole instrument that received a right standing before God.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

There is a sense in which God hides His wisdom from the inprudent students of Scripture. All of Scripture is clear, but there are some things hard to understand because they are less emphasized or not expressly stated. This does not mean, however, that they are less important, or at least does not warrant such thinking.

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

In the end, the real reason why we find some things so very hard to understand is because we are sinners who read the Bible with glasses of sinful prejudice.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Hello Ian.

I'm not sure what your question is, exactly. You ask first about where to find "sola fide" in the Gospels, you make a single reference to Mt.25, and you follow that with a reference in one of Paul's epistles. So, are you asking for general support in the NT (or the whole Bible) for a particular doctrine, or do you want someone to make a specific case out of the Gospels?


My next question is: what do you understand by the term "sola fide?" Do you mean justification by faith alone? Sola Fide considered a term by itself is merely a slogan, a catch-phrase that stands for considerably more than a two-word phrase can describe. It seems likely to me that one aspect of your present difficulty is that you do not have a clear understanding of what Protestants (generally) confess. It's hard to be committed to a doctrine that one barely knows; and it is no more respectable to deny it if you have not really understood what is at stake.


"Justification by faith alone," itself is a descriptive phrase for a single aspect of the fuller doctrine of salvation. In its fullest expression, it touches on the individual works of all three Persons of the Trinity with respect to it; its focus is on how an individual is reconciled to God, which means that some understanding of the doctrines of man (anthropology) and of sin come prior to the doctrine of justification; and its connection with its natural results and fruits is a fit conclusion. In other words, Justification (as much as any doctrinal study) is not a piecemeal affair, but is connected to the rest of what we believe. Theology has an "organic" character to it, a systemic character.

And for this reason, a "prooftext" approach is of limited value. Different groups of people like to latch on to singular expressions by some biblical writer or another, and use such form of words as if it had only one possible and obvious meaning. Who cares about exegesis, when allegedly "every intelligent person agrees" that such-and-such a verse makes an open-and-shut case for MY view? I don't know why JamesWhite's presentations are confusing you; but it could be that because he does not employ a "prooftext" approach, but the more laborious (but also more sure and rewarding) approach using exegesis and the whole Bible, therefore as you are anticipating a different procedure, he cannot communicate effectively to you on the personal level. There may also be some language-barriers also--I don't know your degree of English proficiency.


*********************************

Below, I address three points in reference to your post above.

1) Do we find "justification by faith alone" in the Gospels? Perhaps no better text illustrates this doctrine than Jesus' parable, in Lk.18:9-14, concerning the Pharisee and the Publican. The opening v9 tells us that the question has directly to do with the matter of justification, "He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous," that is to say, they thought they were upstanding in God's sight.

Now the disparity between the works of the one (the Pharisee) and the other (the Publican) was instantly apparent to any 1st century Jewish listener to Jesus. The Pharisee was covered in righteous deeds, the Publican was covered in shame and disgrace. They each pray a prayer to God in the sanctuary. And in the end, Jesus states that only one of these men went home, "justified," v14, that is to say, actually upstanding in God's sight. The Publican has "nothing in his hands" to bring; the Pharisee has a whole list. But it is the Publican who went home justified.

We can appeal to other examples or teaching on the topic, such as the salvation of the Thief on the Cross, crucified next to Jesus, Lk.23:42-43. Here is one who clearly can do nothing at all but hope in the power of the death of the other to satisfy for all his sins. He cannot "die well," to expiate the wrath due to him. Dying is his exact desert; he's getting what's coming to him. He can do one thing only, which is nothing really; only believe that his Lord will remember him, that is to say, when the Lord thinks on this thief, he will do so recognizing him NOT as a thief, but as one of his own saints! There is no "virtue" in the man's faith either. All the virtue is in the One to whom that faith is directed, the Object of faith.

2) What shall we make of Mt.25? In the first place, some effort should be made to demonstrate (if it is even possible) that Mt.25 might actually leave one with the impression that works had merit. Certainly, the parable of the virgins says nothing of it. It is a parable primarily of comparative judgment against those who foolishly (carelessly) wait. Waiting is about as far from working as is possible to be.

The parable of the talents might give more hope to one seeking to discover merit in works; however, the deeds done do not establish the basis for the difference in acceptance or not. The original talents are bestowed unevenly, and there are no expectations given as to what each recipient is to accomplish with his endowment. If one interprets the results as precisely illustrative of Final Judgment, then one should assume that every man must (at least) double heaven's investment in him if he is to have hope of heaven. But this, of course, places limits on the Lord's absolute freedom. Does the text mean to tell us that the Lord will pay heavenly dividends according to a strict schedule of earthly accomplishment? What then should become of the greatly gifted prophet Isaiah (or a similarly situated prophet or preacher), to whom the Lord declared that he should preach with all his might, but would see no fruit, Is.6:9-11?

The purpose of this parable is clear by the end of it, which is that the Lord is not bound to judge according to accomplishment at all, but shall make his determination by the state of the heart. That which was given in reward to the faithful (in heart) servants is in no appreciable proportion to their works, nor is it comparable to "the joy of the Lord." The wicked and lazy (in heart) servant justifies himself exactly with his tit-for-tat reference to his Lord's property. The Lord gets back not one penny less than he entrusted. So what right does he have to find fault? Would this man (if he had doubled his talent) have appreciably improved his master's holdings? If he had lost the investment entirely, would he have diminished them? Most significantly, would he have earned HELL by his failure? See, if we make success and failure in works the issue, then we have validated the wicked servant's criticism of his Lord.

What about the parable of the Sheep and Goats? The only parties who even seem aware of their works are those who are damned. They seem to think that what they've done should have been sufficient. While those who are blessed with the Lord's favor have apparently given no thought whatsoever to the value of their works to God--something that could hardly be the case if they were trusting at all in those things. If kindnesses to men were meaningful to our acceptability to God, and we knew it, then we would never ask the Lord why he considered our kindnesses to our brethren as done in consideration of him. So, if anything, this final parable reveals that those who are most concerned to gain approval from heaven by deeds done in the flesh ("When did we FAIL to minister to you?") get nothing by them.

3) What of Rom.2:6-9? If you take care to follow the structure of Paul's reasoning in Romans, starting in ch.1:18 and carrying through to ch.12 (and beyond), the statement of 2:6ff is clearly a hypothetical testament. From 1:18-3:20, we have a full declaration of "wrath revealed" against every man everywhere. No one is exempt, and this is the point of the "bad news." Then, in 3:21, we have a new beginning, "righteousness revealed" in the gospel--the Good News--which is the remedy for the ALL condemned under the law, in all its forms.

It is quite plain that 2:6ff is nothing less than a reiteration of the original Covenant of Works, the order given to Adam in the Garden whereby he should have eternal life on the condition of perfect, personal, perpetual obedience. Paul bears witness that this is most certainly true, if anyone could possibly obey it. God keeps his Word. Of course, the problem is that NO ONE at all can keep God's law perfectly, which is the only way obedience can be acceptable. Obedience must be Perfect.

Rom.2:6ff certainly reads as if God demands perfect obedience. So, what are they saying who claim that this text supports the view that God will judge all men in the end with respect to their works? Who will stand in THAT dread day? If it is not a perfect judgment, then what is being suggested? An imperfect standard? Well, this is nothing but the Romish (and Pharisaical) doctrine of "congruent" merit. "Do your best, and then God will make up for your lack--as long as you really are doing your best, and make the minimum." Really; and how can I be sure I've done my best, or done the minimum? I will either be self-righteous (sure I have attained the least demanded); or else I will never have any peace, never knowing if God has found enough in me.

It is clear that this view reduces the demands of the Law, by turning down its harshness. God's absolute Standard of Holiness and Righteousness is muted, and all because it cannot be SO HARD to gain divine approval--for who could get to heaven then (if we must attain to it by some addition of our own)? Like the Pharisees, Rome has a substandard, LOW VIEW of the Law and the Holiness of God.

I hope this is a beginning to an answer for your confusion. Please continue to study.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Since the question and answer require precise language, it might be helpful for you to read what one past Reformed theologian has written on this subject in Dutch,

XL. Tegenwerping. 5. De vergelding geschiedt naar de werken, dus wordt de mens uit
de werken gerechtvaardigd. Ziet Matth. 16: 27, Alsdan zal Hij een iegelijk vergelden
naar zijn doen. Rom.2:6, Welke een iegelijk vergelden zal naar zijne werken. 2 Kor. 5:
10; Openb. 2: 23; Openb. 20:12.

Antwoord.
Deze plaatsen wijzen aan de hoedanigheden en 't onderscheid van de personen, die
goed of kwaad vergolden zal worden; maar zij spreken niet van de oorzaken, waarom
het dezen wel, en anderen kwalijk zal gaan. Die goed gedaan en Godzalig geleefd
hebben, zullen zalig worden, maar die goddeloos geleefd hebben, die zullen verdoemd
worden. Daarom staat er niet: een iegelijk zal vergolden worden om zijn werken maar
naar zijn werken; hoewel der godlozen werken de oorzaak zijn van hun verderf.

Men mocht zeggen: De goddelozen worden verdoemd om hun werken, en hun werken
verdienen de verdoemenis, zo dan ook de goede werken de hemel.

Antwoord. Dat volgt niet, omdat de tegenstelling niet volkomen is. Der goddeloze
werken zijn zondig, der Godzalige werken zijn onvolkomen. En ook is er onderscheid
tussen straf en beloning; al wat de dood verdient, het tegendeel daarvan verdient
daarom het tegenovergestelde goed niet; die een doodslag doet, verdient de dood, maar
die geen doodslag doet verdient daarom niet in 't leven te blijven; en ook tussen
goddeloosheid en de verdoemenis is een evenredigheid, maar tussen de goede werken
en de zaligheid is geen evenredigheid; daarom kan men uit het ene geen besluit maken
tot het andere.

XLI. Tegenwerping. 6. De vergelding geschiedt om de goede werken, zo dan ook de
rechtvaardigmaking. Ziet dit: Matth.25: 34, 35, Beërft dat koninkrijk, hetwelk u bereid
is van de grondlegging der wereld. Want Ik ben hongerig geweest, en bij hebt Mij te
eten gegeven. Lukas 7: 47, Daarom zeg Ik u: hare zonden zijn haar vergeven die vele
waren; want zij heeft veel liefgehad.

Antwoord. 1.
(a) In Matth. 25: 34, 35 staat niet dat de mens om zijn goede werken, als verdienende
oorzaken de hemel ontvangt.
(b) Het woordje want geeft zulks niet te kennen; want het betekent zowel een blijk,
teken, bewijs, als een oorzaak. Zie dit: Matth. 16: 2 Schoon weder, want de hemel
is rood. 1 Kor. 10: 5. Maar in het meerder deel van hen heeft God geen
welgevallen gehad; want zij zijn in de woestijn ter neergeslagen.
(c) Dat het woordje want in deze plaats niet de oorzaak, maar een blijk, een bewijs
betekent, is klaar uit den tekst zelf. Hier wordt uitdrukkelijk gezegd, dat de hemel
niet als een verdienend loon, maar als een erfenis gegeven wordt beërft. Dat de
hemel gegeven wordt aan de gezegenden, dat is uitverkorenen, Eféze 1: 3, wien zij
van eeuwigheid toegelegd was; dat deze erfenis voor hen bereid was, eer zij
geboren waren, ja van de grondlegging der wereld.
Dat nu een erfenis is, dat door zegening iemand is toegelegd, dat al duizenden van
jaren, voor dat men was, bereid is, dat sluit alle verdiensten uit. Daarom vertoont
de Heere Jezus, vers 35, wie deze gezegenden en erfgenamen zijn, en waaruit
zulks blijkt; namelijk: aan degenen, die in Christus geloofd hebben, en wier geloof
werkzaam is geweest door de liefde tot Christus aan de gelovigen, vers 40.

2. De tekst Lukas 7: 47, zegt ook niet, dat de vrouw vergeving der zonden ontvangen
heeft om haar goede werken. Het woord want is hier ook een blijken niet een oorzaak.
De vergeving der zonden wordt hier niet de liefde, maar het geloof toegeschreven,
vers 50, Uw geloof heeft u behouden. De liefde komt hier voor als een blijk en bewijs
van het geloof, welks natuur is door de liefde werkzaam te zijn, Gal. 5:6. Dit blijkt ook
uit het oogmerk van de Heere Jezus, 't welk is te tonen, wie meest behoort lief te
hebben, dien vele of weinige zonden vergeven zijn. Simon antwoordt: die veel
vergeven zijn. De Heere Jezus keurt dat goed dat toont, dat de vergeving van zonden
vooruitgesneld wordt daar eerst te zijn, en dat de liefde daaruit vloeit, en niet als een
oorzaak voorgaat; en dat men dienvolgens uit de grootheid der liefde besluiten mag de
vergeving veler zonden.
Dit past de Heere Jezus toe op de vrouw, dat haar dan vele zonden moesten vergeven
zijn, want zij had veel lief. En zo werd de gedachte van de Farizeeër, die Hem
genodigd had, beantwoord, en dat Christus waarlijk een profeet was, én dat hij geen
reden had zich te verwonderen, dat Hij toeliet, dat de grote zondares Hem aanraakte,
dewijl haar al hare vele zonden vergeven waren; en de aanraking uit geestelijke liefde
tot dankbaarheid voortkwam.
(W. á Brakel, De Redelijke Godsdienst, Deel I, Hoofdstuk 31 - 36, pp.102-104)

á Brakel is a very profitable writer and perhaps you may find some further aid from reading the rest of chapter 34 as time allows.

 

[MW]

I think the concern is genuine and correct. We should not read sola fide into the Gospels. The Gospels in various ways relate the fulfilment of God's promises to Israel in the coming of the Christ. Solo Christo is the heart of their message. At the same time, it is impossible to be true to the message of "by Christ alone" without also affirming (1) that the Saviour repeatedly called for faith as the only way to come to Him and receive of His benefits. See especially John 6. (2) That His properly appointed and equipped interpreters, the apostles, specifically make faith the only means of uniting with Christ in order to salvation. Other graces and works are always regarded as growing out of faith. See 2 Peter 1.

To summarise, it must be by faith alone if salvation is to be by Christ alone. The addition of any other grace or of some work of man diminishes the purpose for which the Son of God was manifest.

 

[ZackF]

"I am the way, the truth and the life....except through me." Christ didn't say, "I show the way..." John 3:15-16 and 3:36 are other verses to consider.

Addendum: I got tired of explaining those away to myself when I was RC.

 

[Don Kistler]

The text I often preach from on this subject is Luke 17:1-10, where Jesus tells His disciples that after they have done everything He has commanded them to do, they can say that they are unprofitable, literally, useless. So being perfect merits nothing with Christ. And if our perfect works can't earn us anything, obviously our IMperfect works can't earn us anything.

 

[Ken_lamb]

I don't think they are gymnastic at all, Paul is actually very clear that his own works were as filthy rags. He was a Pharisee. His works and his law keeping were meticulous. But they were not sufficient to save him.
James of course says that faith without works is a dead faith, which is true. For what evidence of your regenerate heart could there be if you did not FEEL utterly compelled to live rightly, knowing of the perfect life that Christ lived on our behalf. Only Roman Catholics argue that sola fide is a license too live without works.

The man on the cross who confessed and repented before Christ had no good works to offer. But his heart was regenerated by the grace of God in his last hours. And Christ assured him that because he believed they would be in heaven together that very day. He could only rely upon the works of Christ himself. Therefore, works of this world can have no part in salvation.

Though for those of greater longevity and for whom the Holy Spirit has regenerated their heart, their heart aches to do good works. Not out of fear, so that they may be saved but out of gratitude because they have been regenerated, given a new heart, and born again.

Forgive my many shortcomings in this explanation, but I believe it is a question of sufficiency. The regenerate heart is sufficient to enter heaven. A talley of Hail Mary's, an accounting of tithes, and even the number of souls won for Christ, even if all done in abundance are not sufficient to enter heaven without the regenerate heart.

In Roman Catholicism, the unregenerate may out of fear of mortality may also confess and get absolution from the works of a priest. This is a work certainly not found anywhere in the gospel and requires some serious literary gymnastics.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The man on the cross who confessed and repented before Christ had no good works to offer. But his heart was regenerated by the grace of God in his last hours

Is this really the case?

Some observations about the thief on the cross and his testimony:

1. Is deserving of just punishment for sin (Lu 23:40)
2. From testimony of the Holy Spirit (John 15:26), sees Christ was a sinless man (Lu 23:40-41), but also God (Lu 23:42)
3. Makes earnest confession (Lu 23:40-41), being convicted by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8)
4. Feels repentance of the heart and spoken by the mouth (Lu 23:40-41)
5. Possesses a true Faith (Lu 23:42)
6. Knew Christ possessed and was in authority in a Kingdom (Lu 23:42)
7. Believed Christ could forgive sins and grant eternal life. Another attribute of God. (Lu 23:43)
8. Christ lives even after death (Lu 23:43)

I don’t think we can look to this event for clarity about whether or not good works were required for salvation. On the one hand, we might interpret that the thief performed some good works (see #2, #4, #6). The thief’s public witness of Christ’s sinless state was bold given the mood of the mob around the Crucifixion. Yet, one can just as readily interpret these actions as the workings of the Holy Spirit in convicting the thief towards repentance. The amount of saving faith the thief exhibited was extraordinary.

It might also be assumed that the thief had heard the Gospel being preached, when the thief heard Christ’s prayer to God the Father in Lu 23:34. Imagine being there on the cross and hearing Christ pray to God the Father to forgive these persons who were crucifying Him. The grace one would be witnessing is quite a Gospel message!

 

[Ken_lamb]

Thank you for your comments. I would respectfully contend that the works that you point out #2, #4, #6, are not works of anyone but of God. The reason I say this is because they are statements as matter of fact, not observations of actions.

The thief's belief that Jesus was without sin as well as his authority in heaven was revealed to him by the father as it was to Peter. Neither 2 nor 4 represent actions independent of heart and mind.

Confession and repentance may actually be done under compulsions without any regeneration. Therefore outwardly those actions could not have saved him, but his heart being regenerated made such actions fruitful. He could not regenerate his own heart.

I know this to be true of my own heart conversion which was confirmed in scripture.

 

[Ken_lamb]

I think even if we completely abandon the work of God directly in the hearts of men, certainly we must admit, that if there were any works that resulted in the thief's belief in Christ, those works were entirely performed by Christ.

But to reduce that one thief was somehow smarter, or harder working than the other thief who equally observed the same works of Christ, asserts more credit than what scripture ascribes.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I would respectfully contend that the works that you point out #2, #4, #6, are not works of anyone but of God

I did attribute them to the Holy Spirit. I could have been more clear nevertheless.

 

[Ken_lamb]

I don't think we are in much disagreement, I just don't think scripture lends its self to the theological allegory that God tossed us a life saver that we must only grasp, when Paul is very clear that dead men have no power to save themselves.

 

[Ken_lamb]

Please excuse me if it seems like I'm attributing the life saver analogy to you. That was not my intent.