Sole Fide, By Faith Alone

[mitchellmckain]

KomradRed's statement of my position on this topic was not 100% accurate. He understands my postions on a lot of things so his overall impression of where I stand on things is pretty good. His statement of it is such that it seems to contradict the other things he knows I believe and that is where it is a little off.

I disagree with mitch over works, faith, and how exactly we achieve salvation. Mitch comes from the Protestant camp of Christianity and adheres to Justification by Faith, or Sola Fide. He believes that we are saved by our faith in God and His sacrifice alone. X number of good works will not save you, however, he also believes Faith without works is essentially dead. I come from the Catholic tradition which believes that justification is through both faith and works. A man will be measured up to his works, to show who among us is truly righteous and faithful. Ultimately I reject Mitch's interpretation because if Peasant Bob in 4th century India had never heard of Christianity, he would not be able to be saved by an act of faith, and according to several sects, would be doomed to hellfire and such, although I am pretty sure Mitch does not believe anything like that. As I stated previously, I believe all human beings can achieve salvation through altruistic actions/works. After all, a good work done for selfish or evil reasons isn't necessarily a good work.

I do not believe that we are saved by our faith in God. That is incorrect. We are saved by the work of God. Period. I hold that "saved through faith" does not mean this at all. We are not saved by anything we do whether it is an act of faith or anything else. "Saved through faith", as I understand it, instead basically means that knowledge of our salvation can only be by an act of faith and that a choice we make plays the determining role of whether we are saved or not. The choice to accept salvation however does not save us. We can make this choice only because God enables us. We must make this choice because God demands it (which is just another way of saying that our salvation demands it). But all this choice does is decide whether we will go our own way or submit to continued work of God for our salvation. From this it should also be obvious that I also do not believe as KomradRed claims that we are saved by Jesus' sacrifice alone. I don't believe in magic and I certainly don't believe in any magical power of human sacrifice. Salvation is about a very real transformation of human character, values and awareness, so it in the impact that the cross has on these things that its efficacy is found and not in any kind of payment or magical power.

So KomradRed's impression that I do not conclude that Peasant Bob is doomed to hellfire by the lack of knowledge of Christianity is 100% correct. In this complete rejection of the Gnostic idea of salvation by some special belief or knowledge, KomradRed and I are in complete agreement.


Anyway here is a previous statement of my position on this subject quoted from a previous thread.

Salvation is by the grace of God alone -- 100% a work of God. But salvation is not a ticket to heaven but a transformation of self into goodness - a realization of our true potential and so salvation is not independent of works and thoughts and beliefs. We are not saved by works but we are saved to works. And no there is no condition on this that God only works for your salvation if you are a Christian or if you believe in Him.

Salvation is through faith. This is not a contradiction because this is not about what accomplishes our salvation, but about the process by which God accomplishes it. But no, faith is not some sort of magical power or belief that God bestows upon us so that by this power or belief we can save ourselves! First and foremost this salvation through faith stuff means that God is not operating on an inanimate object with will and choice that either doesn't exist or doesn't matter, so part of the process of salvation is that however much God may have to work to liberate our free will so that we can do so, God requires us to make a choice. Either we can go the way of our own desire, OR understanding that God's desire for us is so much better, to choose that instead. This is NOT a surrender of our free will but an excercise our free will to choose the direction in which God would lead, and the fact of the matter is that the direction that God would lead us is to the increase of our free will. Life does not suddenly become simpler for the person that follows God's lead, because it is not about God telling him what to do all the time. It becomes more complicated because God makes him aware of choices he would never have imagined otherwise.

But there is a second part to the salvation through faith business. And that is in answer to the quesion in the General Discussion section, how do we know? The answer is through faith. We make a choice and we put our trust in God and that really is all there is to it. So do I "know that I know that I am saved"? Give me a break! You can keep such invitations to self brainwashing. How can it be salvation through faith to buy into this promise that I never need have faith again because "I know". Just like love, this is well within the realm where belief creates reality. If we don't believe in it then it cannot be, for there comes a point where you have to understand that life is not just about objective observation but also about subjective participation.

For completion sake, the rest of the solas were discussed later in the same thread that this was taken from. I also answered questions about what is quoted above in the same thread.

[humanguy]

I do not believe that we are saved by our faith in God. That is incorrect. We are saved by the work of God. Period.

So we are not saved by our faith in God. But then you say:

Salvation is through faith. This is not a contradiction because this is not about what accomplishes our salvation, but about the process by which God accomplishes it. But no, faith is not some sort of magical power or belief that God bestows upon us so that by this power or belief we can save ourselves! First and foremost this salvation through faith stuff means that God is not operating on an inanimate object with will and choice that either doesn't exist or doesn't matter, so part of the process of salvation is that however much God may have to work to liberate our free will so that we can do so, God requires us to make a choice. Either we can go the way of our own desire, OR understanding that God's desire for us is so much better, to choose that instead.

So now it is through faith, but...now Mitch, I understand that you're a scientist. As such, can you make heads or tales out of what you've written here, because I sure can't.

[KomradRed]

I believe what Mitch is saying is that salvation is through a act of faith basically means is that when we choose to believe in God's message and offer of salvation, we are ultimately putting ourselves into God's hands. We can make a choice whether to submit our will before God and accept His salvation, or go our own way. Is this the gist of it Mitch?

Also, you say we are saved by the work of God and you dont believe in magical human sacrifices in regards to the crucifixion. Could you explain your interpretation of Christ's death, and how you view the resurrection?

[mitchellmckain]

So now it is through faith, but...now Mitch, I understand that you're a scientist. As such, can you make heads or tales out of what you've written here, because I sure can't.

Sorry. All I can say is that it makes sense to me. A lot of people cannot make heads or tales out of relativity or quantum physics either. We all just have to go with what makes sense to us I guess.

I believe what Mitch is saying is that salvation is through a act of faith basically means is that when we choose to believe in God's message and offer of salvation, we are ultimately putting ourselves into God's hands. We can make a choice whether to submit our will before God and accept His salvation, or go our own way. Is this the gist of it Mitch?

Yep.

Also, you say we are saved by the work of God and you dont believe in magical human sacrifices in regards to the crucifixion.

Yes, God's work is the work of a teacher and parent, not the work of a magician or sorcerer. As I explain on page 8 of the "Jesus fully human?" thread in the General Discussion section:

Yeah at first glance penal substitution is right up there on the irrationality scale with human sacrifice, until you take a look at the purpose of punishment. We have to understand and accept that our actions have consequences that we cannot ignore, and this is what stands in the way of God forgiving us freely. God has no difficulty at all in forgiving us. Its not about that. It is about us learning to be responsible. So in this sense there is a penal substitution, but not because of some cosmic law that someone has to pay, but because we can learn this lesson of consquences if we understand that He died on the cross because of what we did.

Could you explain your interpretation of Christ's death, and how you view the resurrection?

I am not quite sure what you mean about the first part of this question. God became a human being and died a human death, but He did this for our sake, to teach us and change us. Perhaps you meant my understanding of the atonement in which case see above and below. As for the resurrection see the thread "Physical Resurrection" in this section where I respond to a challenge to my belief in a Spiritual Resurrection based on 1 Cor 15 or the thread "Am I a Christian" in the General Discussion section from which I quote below a portion of my initial statement there:.

That you would start with this, strikes me again with the amazement at how different people are. For truth be told, it is in this area Christian theology where comprehension has come to me rather more slowly than other areas. I think one of the contributing reasons for this is some lack of clarity and consistency in Christian thought on this matter. However, I think that 1 Cor 15 makes it quite clear that although Jesus' resurrection was a bodily resurrection, it was not a physical resurrection, it was a resurrection to a spiritual body - eternal and free of the physical laws of nature. That is not where my difficulty in comprehension has been. My difficulty was in the apostle Paul's numerous claims about the critical importance of the resurrection.

Now I think that many Christians have a rather easy reply to this question because they think of this as a physical resurrection and that what they are saved from is physical death - and that the promise they look to is one of future physical resurrection and thus a future physical life on this planet. They make no distinction between eternal life and this future existence. I frankly think that this view is more comical than Biblical, and perhaps it is this red herring that made my comprehension difficult.

I think it is quite clear in the Bible and Christian thought that eternal existence is a given and it is the nature of that existence that is in question. The promise of eternal life has to do with having that which will make this eternal existence worthwhile rather than an eternal hell. More important, for me salvation has always been ALL about having a life giving relationship with God and once you have that you have EVERYTHING for it is that which God is offering and not some manipulative promise of future reward. Furthermore, once you believed that Jesus was God incarnate, the resurrection seems like a forgone conclusion. Of course death would not hold Him. His life and existence never depended on a physical human body and so its death would not hold any great significance for Him. Thus the Paul's emphasis on the resurrection as being critically important was hard for me to grasp.

The importance of Jesus death on the cross was clear to me, for that is what pierces our lies and delusions to make our relationship with God real. The whole point was to balance the love of God and the reality of sin -- and thus to bury once and for all the childish thinking that if God loves us then He can magically make it all better. The point is that the forgiveness of sins cannot come without the understanding that the consequences of our actions are inescapable -- that our salvation comes with a price that even God cannot ignore. Most Christains would call it justice but I think it has more to do with inescapable considerations of logical consistency. Many might think of the cross as having to do with some kind of magical power of human sacrifice but I think that it all about transforming our understanding of reality - not just on some intellectual level but right down in the gut - a transformation of our human existence - so that we can no longer imagine that repentance and forgiveness can be separated.

But I eventually came to realize that even if the resurrection was spiritual not physical, the meaning of the resurrection was still the same - the fulfillment of the promise of eternal life. How were we to understand the meaning of the cross unless we understood that Jesus was God and how would we understand that if He did not walk out of the tomb as a living spirit for all to see? How were we to understand that this spiritual resurrection was a real continuation of life in every sense? And how would we know that He was no hallucination, but that the spiritual is in fact the greater and more substantial reality, if Jesus did not appear in that closed room and have Thomas touch Him. So I have come to understand why it is as Paul said, that "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins".

[mikedsjr]

Mitch, I would love to see how you interpret verse by verse of Ephesians 2. I'll give you my oh-so-rough-and quick draft.

Paul is speaking to Christians
Verses 1-3. Your were a transgressor of God's law. You were incapable of faith that chooses God because you were children of wrath. (how can a child of wrath choose God? It can't)
verse 4-7 BUT....the biggest and greatest but of all. God saved us through Christ.
verse 8-10 It is by your faith you were saved. But you couldn't have had the faith to save yourself from the wrath to come (Oh hell is real. Its damn real) without God's grace. So get over yourselves to thinking you have power over God.

If you want a more thorough explanation, then I need yours next. Otherwise, consider me out of this thread

[mitchellmckain]

Mitch, I would love to see how you interpret verse by verse of Ephesians 2. I'll give you my oh-so-rough-and quick draft.

Mike, it would be my pleasure to share with you how this passage inspires and instructs me that it might by some chance aid in your understanding, but I would not presume to interpret so as to suggest that my poor words can in any way improve upon the words that are already written there.

Paul is speaking to Christians
Verses 1-3. Your were a transgressor of God's law. You were incapable of faith that chooses God because you were children of wrath. (how can a child of wrath choose God? It can't)

Quite correct. Sin destroys free will. Free will is the essence of life. Therefore the product of sin is death. (In my view life is quantitative thing not just an either-or condition.) Thus dead in our sins (although walking around as living human beings) we are incapable of choosing God and thus it requires the work of God to liberate us from our sins in order for us to make the choice that God and our salvation requires (I did mention this above).

verse 4-7 BUT....the biggest and greatest but of all. God saved us through Christ.

"But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the coming ages he might show kindness towards us in Christ Jesus."

Yes there is no doubt that Jesus represents the central act of God in His providence for our salvation. It is a direct attack on the lies and misunderstandings that separate us from God demonstrating that His love is without limit and there is no blame that can be laid at His feet for our predicament. But there is nothing here to suggest that we are saved by a knowledge of these things, so the Gnostic heresy finds no support in this passage of the writings of the apostle Paul.

verse 8-10 It is by your faith you were saved. But you couldn't have had the faith to save yourself from the wrath to come (Oh hell is real. Its damn real) without God's grace. So get over yourselves to thinking you have power over God.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

Yes this is what I have been saying. That salvation is a gift of God, is an important key to understanding, for it cannot be a gift if it is something that is forced upon us against our will, and so it is our choice to accept this gift, and yet is completely absurd to suggest that accepting a gift changes the gift into something which is earned or which we have by right. So our faith is not a work by which our salvation is earned, but as it says here in this passage salvation is completely a work of God alone manifested in our remaking into the image of Christ and thus to the good works which He teaches us to desire.

Indeed we have no power over God and it is a great distortion of the gospel to think we have God bound to promises or a contract that we imagine to be written somewhere, so that having fulfilled the terms of the contract we can be proud of being a saved christian as one of our greatest accomplishments in life. I have great pity for those who would call themselves "christian" and think that they can approach God in this manner.

[humanguy]

Indeed we have no power over God and it is a great distortion of the gospel to think we have God bound to promises or a contract that we imagine to be written somewhere, so that having fulfilled the terms of the contract we can be proud of being a saved christian as one of our greatest accomplishments in life. I have great pity for those who would call themselves "christian" and think that they can approach God in this manner.

Huh. That's pretty harsh stuff coming from a "christian." So why do you have "great pity?" Is something terrible supposed to happen to them?
Anyway, you could be wrong, you know. I mean, who are you to decide who's a real "christian" and who isn't?
Also, what's so wrong with "christians" being proud of being saved? I thought that was the whole central point of the thing, to be saved. For a "christian" I would have thought that that would be the greatest accomplishment in life, no?
I'll tell you what, Mitch, seeing as how you're a real-for-sure-no-doubt-about-it-bonafide "christian," why not just tell us about the manner in which you approach God, which is, no doubt, the correct and proper one?

[Rian]

hey, hey, this IS the Christian forum - most of us (on both sides) don't mind "foreign" posters at all, as long as the politeness is stepped up a bit. If you really want to address this in the way you did, you can quote his post and start a thread in the general forum.

[mitchellmckain]

Rian is of course correct. And although I will respond... for the record, I extend no welcome. Your hostility certainly doesn't belong here in the Christian section. Following me here with your hostilities is classic troll-like behavior.

Indeed we have no power over God and it is a great distortion of the gospel to think we have God bound to promises or a contract that we imagine to be written somewhere, so that having fulfilled the terms of the contract we can be proud of being a saved christian as one of our greatest accomplishments in life. I have great pity for those who would call themselves "christian" and think that they can approach God in this manner.

Huh. That's pretty harsh stuff coming from a "christian." So why do you have "great pity?" Is something terrible supposed to happen to them?

I don't know, severe embarassment at the very least. At worst, their imagined contracts and promises will be shown up for the frauds they are and they will find themselves judged as they themselves have judged others.

Anyway, you could be wrong, you know. I mean, who are you to decide who's a real "christian" and who isn't?

I said nothing about any "real christians" so just because others you have known or you yourself have been in the habit of making such judgements in the past, doesn't mean it has anything to do with me. For my part being Christian is a matter of belief according to the definition of the consensus and the largest such consensus defines it by the agreements of the eccumenical councils of the fourth century. And I have certainly made it abundantly clear here and everywhere that I certainly do not believe that this has anything to do with being saved.

Also, what's so wrong with "christians" being proud of being saved?

Because it is radically and diametrically opposed the everything I understand and see of value in Christianity. Now, I think that the consensus of Christianity and the writings in the Bible are very clear about salvation being a work of God, so being proud of being saved makes no sense in the context of anything that I would find recognizable as Christian belief. People can of course do anything they want and call themselves anything they want, but I want to make it very clear that I do not want to have ANYTHING to do with any sort of "christianity" where that is how its participants are going to behave.

I thought that was the whole central point of the thing, to be saved. For a "christian" I would have thought that that would be the greatest accomplishment in life, no?

That may have been what it was all about for you or people you have known and in that case I can well understand why you have no interest in that, OR maybe you just misunderstood. I do in fact think that there are a great many people who call themselves christian who do indeed think in this way. Clearly, I think they have it completely wrong.

I'll tell you what, Mitch, seeing as how you're a real-for-sure-no-doubt-about-it-bonafide "christian,"

I don't even know what that is. If we are talking about belief, and there is some ridgid standard written somewhere then I probably don't measure up. If we are about some other standard then I am still sure that I do not measure up. Frankly this "real-for-sure-no-doubt-about-it-bonafide" whatever does not make sense in the context of the teaching of the gosple (not as I understand it) because if there is any measuring up to any standard then we all fail miserably.

why not just tell us about the manner in which you approach God...

No. I don't think that is any of your business.

[mikedsjr]

Mitch, Let me see if i have this.

Sin destroys free will
Free will = essence of life
So Sin = destroying the essence of life.
thus the product of destroying the essence of life is death?


1. Am i incorrect in what you said?
2. where can you infer sin destroys free will in the bible? Because it certainly doesn't say it explicitly.

[humanguy]

hey, hey, this IS the Christian forum - most of us (on both sides) don't mind "foreign" posters at all, as long as the politeness is stepped up a bit. If you really want to address this in the way you did, you can quote his post and start a thread in the general forum.

Oops, you're absolutely right. Please accept my apologies.

[mitchellmckain]

Sin destroys free will
Free will = essence of life
So Sin = destroying the essence of life.
thus the product of destroying the essence of life is death?


1. Am i incorrect in what you said?

Not completely.

The conclusion of the syllogism is: Sin detroys the essence of life NOT Sin = destroying the essence of life.

2. where can you infer sin destroys free will in the bible? Because it certainly doesn't say it explicitly.

There are a lot of things that the Bible does not say explicity and the doctrine of the Trinity is at the top of the list.

[KomradRed]

Sola's aside, anyone ever hear of Pelagius, contemporary of Augustine of Hippo? Apparently he was an ascetic from the British Isles who denied the idea of original sin, believing that human beings have the capacity within themselves to achieve grace/salvation. He was declared a heretic for his beliefs.

I find Pelagius both inspiring and confusing. For one I am of the idea that while God may give us the tools necessary to achieve salvation, we must make a concerted effort to do so. While it is easy for some people to say that they have put themselves in God's hands, it is all to easy to live your life frivolously, expecting some sort of Divine influence to strike us, informing us of God's will. I ways I like the Pelagian interpretation of faith in that it is more proactive, that man is capable of achieving salvation on his own. However, I am confused by his interpretation in that how do you explain Christ's sacrifice outside of some extremely abstract moral message?

[mitchellmckain]

Sola's aside, anyone ever hear of Pelagius, contemporary of Augustine of Hippo? Apparently he was an ascetic from the British Isles who denied the idea of original sin, believing that human beings have the capacity within themselves to achieve grace/salvation. He was declared a heretic for his beliefs.

I find Pelagius both inspiring and confusing. For one I am of the idea that while God may give us the tools necessary to achieve salvation, we must make a concerted effort to do so. While it is easy for some people to say that they have put themselves in God's hands, it is all to easy to live your life frivolously, expecting some sort of Divine influence to strike us, informing us of God's will. I ways I like the Pelagian interpretation of faith in that it is more proactive, that man is capable of achieving salvation on his own. However, I am confused by his interpretation in that how do you explain Christ's sacrifice outside of some extremely abstract moral message?

Yes I like Pelagius too and many of the things he taught became standard practice in Protestantism. He was an extremist and goes over the edges in places but then I think the same can be said of his opponent Augustine. Choosing one over the other (and declaring Pelagius a heretic) rather than the two sitting down and working out their differences was one of the greatest tragedies of Christian history.

[mikedsjr]

i wrote a response and somehow it didn't work and i will only rewrite it if you seemed to respond with your same answer from previous post. So quickly:

1. so the product of a destroyed essence of life is death. Correct? and what is essence of life from the Bible?
2. You still haven't proven you position that sin destroys free will from the bible.