Sola Fide

[Belsnickel]

Faith alone, the concept that we cannot, through our actions, justify the grace of God that we receive. That the grace of God is given to us through the sacrifice of Jesus. What's your opinion on it? It's a concept that has been tossed around for centuries and there is a lot of back and forth between theologians. Plenty of Bible verses are used to support it and plenty to go against it. It's a new concept to me that I have been trying to learn more about through my readings of Luther's works and I figured we might have some people on here that would enjoy the discussion.

So, sola fide, what does it mean to you? Are you in agreement with it or not? And responses from non-Christians are just as welcome, just don't be mocking/derogatory.

[fredtoast]

I understand the concept that man has done nothing to deserve God's forgiveness, but I have never understood why Jesus had to die for it.

If I make a sacrifice to myself I am not making a sacrifice at all.

[Bengalzona]

(04-26-2016, 01:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Faith alone, the concept that we cannot, through our actions, justify the grace of God that we receive. That the grace of God is given to us through the sacrifice of Jesus. What's your opinion on it? It's a concept that has been tossed around for centuries and there is a lot of back and forth between theologians. Plenty of Bible verses are used to support it and plenty to go against it. It's a new concept to me that I have been trying to learn more about through my readings of Luther's works and I figured we might have some people on here that would enjoy the discussion.

So, sola fide, what does it mean to you? Are you in agreement with it or not? And responses from non-Christians are just as welcome, just don't be mocking/derogatory.

It's core doctrine for Protestant Christianity. It is the belief that we are tainted by sin and, therefore, cannot receive God's grace unless we recognize the divine nature and sacrifice of Jesus.

Among most Protestant churches, it is the initial part of the process for salvation: 1) Justification - confessing that you have sinned and recognizing Jesus as divine frees you from the penalty of sin, 2) Sanctification - recognizing and heeding the Holy Spirit's guidance within you to free yourself from the power of sin, and 3) Glorification - being removed from the presence of sin during the Second Coming of Christ. Acts (generosity, kindness, mercy, etc.) are generally believed to be not recognized by God from someone who has not gone through Justification. Someone going through the second phase of Sanctification is expected to be moved to perform Acts by the working of the Holy Spirit within them (i.e. you still don't get any browny points for doing them).

Catholic and Orthodox theology differs, but I should let someone of those beliefs speak on that.

Do I believe this? Yes and no. I believe it applies to me. I'm not sure that it applies to everyone. As you noted above, some sections of the Bible go against this. If you go to just about any dyed-in-the-wool Baptist church and ask if there will be non-Christians in Heaven (i.e. people who have not recognized Christ as their savior), you will overwhelming get a response of "yes". This is what they have been taught, from the preachers on down. If you then ask them "What is the only way to get to Heaven?", you will inevitably receive a response about recognizing Jesus as your savior.

Why the contradictory beliefs? If you ask me (and even if you didn't), I believe it goes to the very root of the problem with how Christianity is practiced in modern times: it is meant to be a belief set adopted by an individual and applied to their own life, not everyone else around them. Why? Because if you are busy pointing out other people's failings, you aren't spending enough time recognizing and correcting your own failings.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Belsnickel]

(04-26-2016, 03:21 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: It's core doctrine for Protestant Christianity. It is the belief that we are tainted by sin and, therefore, cannot receive God's grace unless we recognize the divine nature and sacrifice of Jesus.

Among most Protestant churches, it is the initial part of the process for salvation: 1) Justification - confessing that you have sinned and recognizing Jesus as divine frees you from the penalty of sin, 2) Sanctification - recognizing and heeding the Holy Spirit's guidance within you to free yourself from the power of sin, and 3) Glorification - being removed from the presence of sin during the Second Coming of Christ. Acts (generosity, kindness, mercy, etc.) are generally believed to be not recognized by God from someone who has not gone through Justification. Someone going through the second phase of Sanctification is expected to be moved to perform Acts by the working of the Holy Spirit within them (i.e. you still don't get any browny points for doing them).

Catholic and Orthodox theology differs, but I should let someone of those beliefs speak on that.

Do I believe this? Yes and no. I believe it applies to me. I'm not sure that it applies to everyone. As you noted above, some sections of the Bible go against this. If you go to just about any dyed-in-the-wool Baptist church and ask if there will be non-Christians in Heaven (i.e. people who have not recognized Christ as their savior), you will overwhelming get a response of "yes". This is what they have been taught, from the preachers on down. If you then ask them "What is the only way to get to Heaven?", you will inevitably receive a response about recognizing Jesus as your savior.

Why the contradictory beliefs? If you ask me (and even if you didn't), I believe it goes to the very root of the problem with how Christianity is practiced in modern times: it is meant to be a belief set adopted by an individual and applied to their own life, not everyone else around them. Why? Because if you are busy pointing out other people's failings, you aren't spending enough time recognizing and correcting your own failings.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Thanks for the well thought out response. It's interesting, because I have been learning that it is the core of Protestant theology, however it's not something that was really taught to me in my Anabaptist upbringing.

I was having a discussion about this on Reddit and someone asked me if I, personally, believed in sola fide. I told them, pretty much what you said, that it makes sense to me in my personal relationship with God. I think it's important to recognize that you are not perfect and that what you do is often not in line with the teachings, so I see it as an active faith. So again, much like you have said already.

I guess this is something that was spoken of in very broad and ambiguous terms with my upbringing, but now in a church that is more structured it takes on different airs.

[*michaelsean*]

Personally I don't believe it all, but my concept of God differs from Christianity. There is nothing to forgive. We aren't here to prove we belong there. There is our home, and we can here for growth, experiences etc. This is just a different, physical plane in which we choose or choose not to exist.

[Belsnickel]

(04-26-2016, 01:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I understand the concept that man has done nothing to deserve God's forgiveness, but I have never understood why Jesus had to die for it.

If I make a sacrifice to myself I am not making a sacrifice at all.

Interestingly enough, I don't know whether God was making a sacrifice to himself, or to mankind. Jesus is often described as a gift to the world, so is it God making a sacrifice to mankind, or mankind sacrificing their gift to God?

[GMDino]

(04-26-2016, 03:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Interestingly enough, I don't know whether God was making a sacrifice to himself, or to mankind. Jesus is often described as a gift to the world, so is it God making a sacrifice to mankind, or mankind sacrificing their gift to God?

I always interpreted it as God sacrificed himself for us.

However He did sacrifice himself to himself....so.....

[*michaelsean*]

(04-26-2016, 01:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I understand the concept that man has done nothing to deserve God's forgiveness, but I have never understood why Jesus had to die for it.

If I make a sacrifice to myself I am not making a sacrifice at all.

That's where the mystery of the trinity comes in.  To be honest it always seemed symbolic to me, and I always wondered why God needed a symbolic sacrifice to be able to forgive us.  

[Belsnickel]

(04-26-2016, 03:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's where the mystery of the trinity comes in.  To be honest it always seemed symbolic to me, and I always wondered why God needed a symbolic sacrifice to be able to forgive us.  

I'm actually with you on this. To me, it isn't that the sacrifice had anything to do with the ability to forgive, but merely to show mankind that there was that forgiveness.

[fredtoast]

(04-26-2016, 03:21 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: If you go to just about any dyed-in-the-wool Baptist church and ask if there will be non-Christians in Heaven (i.e. people who have not recognized Christ as their savior), you will overwhelming get a response of "yes". This is what they have been taught, from the preachers on down. 

I was raised Baptists and I never heard anything like this.  I was taught that the only way to get to heaven was to accept Jesus as your savior.

I was the leader of the youth group at my church when I was in high school, and my first year of college was spent at a hard core Baptist college, Carson-Newman.  They were not even allowed to have dances at Carson Newman.  It might have changed over the last 30 years, but that was what it was like when I was there.

[Bengalzona]

(04-26-2016, 01:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I understand the concept that man has done nothing to deserve God's forgiveness, but I have never understood why Jesus had to die for it.

If I make a sacrifice to myself I am not making a sacrifice at all.

In the theology, the sacrifice of Jesus was to "erase" the sins of each person rather than "cover" them like a patch, which was the traditional Judaic belief.

In the early days of Judaism, the nature of Heaven was not discussed. It was not assumed that Heaven was a place for human souls. It was merely the place where God dwelt. And since God could not be viewed or understood by humans, Heaven would therefore not be a place for humans or humans souls. As to what would happen to humans when they died, no one knew. You lived your life on Earth and did what God told you to do because He was God. If you wanted to talk to God, you prayed. But if you had broken one of the Mitzvah (the 613 commandments from God in the Torah), God would not hear your prayer. Your 'sin' had to covered for the time that you were on Earth for God to hear you. This was done by going to the Temple, bringing a certain sacrifice of crops or animals to the Levites (the priest caste), and having them pray for your atonement. This sacrifice of foodstuffs also served a purpose of feeding the Priests, who represented a large portion of the population and produced no food. In a way, the early sacrifice system was a social service.

But this all goes back to schisms in early Judaism. The broadest schism concerned the Sadduccees and the Pharissees. The Sadduccees believed only what was in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. In the beginning of Judaism, all Jews were Sadduccees. Over time, new writings appeared: prophecies from prophets, scripture interpretations from rabbis, etc. Some within Judaism felt these needed to be included into the worship. These would become the Pharissees. The Pharissees would become the forefathers of modern Judaism after the destruction of the Temple.


One of the new ideas supported by the Pharissees concerned Heaven. The belief that Heaven could also be a place for human souls was growing among some Jews and the Pharissees adopted this along with some other beliefs not adopted by the Sadduccees. The Sadduccees held most of the power right up to the time of Jesus. But the Pharissees beliefs were pretty popular and they were growing to almost equal the Sadduccees influence (there were probably more Pharissees at that time of Jesus than any other Jewish group, but they were still trying to gain political power). The Pharissees didn't develop the concept of humans in Heaven much further, just the thought that there might be an afterlife.

The sect split between the Pharissees and the Sadduccees was similar to the ideological splits between the Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox churches or the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. But unlike the more modern splits, the rift did not exhibit itself in actual warfare between the two sides. They actually co-existed relatively peacefully and the battle was fought with words and debate. This more peaceful disagreement was probably at least partially a result of Judah being taken over by the Romans.

The coming of the Romans brought a crises to the Jews. The Jews had been a province of other powers since they returned to the region (the Macedonians, Ptolemic Egypt, etc.). But those other powers merely took a tribute and left the Jews alone. The Romans were different. They actually showed up and felt a need to police and administer the area. This made the Jews uneasy and unruly, which in turn made the Romans feel a need to bring greater force. Tensions and anxiety in the area were very high. And these tensions brought two new reactionary sub-sects of the Pharissees: the Zealots and the Essenes.

Both groups adopted and developed Messianic philosophies from the Pharissees. The Zealots felt the need to expel the Romans through armed force and that a Messiah would come to lead them in this cause. The Essenes felt the need to retreat from society to isolated areas to worship and cleanse themselves in preparation for the coming of a Messiah... who would also bring an apocalypse. Because of their apocalyptic belief, the Essenes probably further developed the concept of human souls going to Heaven and what might be required for them to get there. Because of their monk-like ways, it is hard to know how much influence the Essenes had on overall society at the time. But it is very interesting that much of their beliefs carried over into Christianity.

With the growing concept that human souls might go to Heaven after life, there was an additional concern as to what might be required of a human to make that trip. The existing sacrifice system was felt sufficient to cover one's sins while alive so that you would be able to pray to God. But just covering the sins like bandaid did not seem sufficient to meet the needs of getting the soul into the presence of God in Heaven (I believe there was a belief that the mere proximity to God would obliterate any 'tainted' soul which approached Him). What would be needed would be a perfect sacrifice. And it would have to represent the sins of all of humanity. Most of the Jews did not believe that an animal or even a human could ever meet that requirement. Thus, the theological need for the only perfect thing, God, to create His own sacrifice.

And you know how the rest of the story goes...

[Bengalzona]

(04-26-2016, 05:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I was raised Baptists and I never heard anything like this.  I was taught that the only way to get to heaven was to accept Jesus as your savior.

I was the leader of the youth group at my church when I was in high school, and my first year of college was spent at a hard core Baptist college, Carson-Newman.  They were not even allowed to have dances at Carson Newman.  It might have changed over the last 30 years, but that was what it was like when I was there.

Since 2000, I've dallied in some pretty hardcore evangelical churches in Ohio and out here in Arizona. In Bible studies and sometimes in sermons, this topic always seemed to come up. Usually in the form of "Will there be (Jews, atheists, Muslims, etc.) in Heaven?" the response or teaching has always been the same: "Yes. I expect there will be some."

Never any explanation about how this would fit with having to accept Jesus as Savior, though.

Maybe it is a change in the churches. All I remember from the short time I went to a Baptist church as a child in the seventies was being shown a horror film about zombie-like people walking around with "666" tattooed on their foreheads.

[Beaker]

I think a creator loves us all no matter what we do while here in the physical world. I believe we are all part of the same whole. The only example I can think of to illustrate what I mean is that we are all piece of one great soul...kind of like how individual cells make up a human. Therefore we are all "god". A creator is not separate from us and we do not require forgiveness. Sin is a concept created by men to control other men. We dont have to accept anyone as our savior as we are all parts of the same god. The problem is we dont recognize it and see ourselves as separate. That's where all the problems of mankind arise....seing ourselves as separate rather than part of the same whole.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-26-2016, 10:40 PM)Beaker Wrote: I think a creator loves us all no matter what we do while here in the physical world. I believe we are all part of the same whole. The only example I can think of to illustrate what I mean is that we are all piece of one great soul...kind of like how individual cells make up a human. Therefore we are all "god". A creator is not separate from us and we do not require forgiveness. Sin is a concept created by men to control other men. We dont have to accept anyone as our savior as we are all parts of the same god. The problem is we dont recognize it and see ourselves as separate. That's where all the problems of mankind arise....seing ourselves as separate rather than part of the same whole.

I think we see ourselves as separate on purpose. Sort of how you need dark in order to experience light.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(04-26-2016, 05:22 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Since 2000, I've dallied in some pretty hardcore evangelical churches in Ohio and out here in Arizona. In Bible studies and sometimes in sermons, this topic always seemed to come up. Usually in the form of "Will there be (Jews, atheists, Muslims, etc.) in Heaven?" the response or teaching has always been the same: "Yes. I expect there will be some."

Never any explanation about how this would fit with having to accept Jesus as Savior, though.

Maybe it is a change in the churches. All I remember from the short time I went to a Baptist church as a child in the seventies was being shown a horror film about zombie-like people walking around with "666" tattooed on their foreheads.

Many Baptist Churches are starting to turn Calvin and believing that God picks and chooses who's going to Heaven and who's going to Hell. Maybe that's what you heard, I don't know.

My Baptist Church teaches that it is through Jesus Christ as the only way to Heaven. As long as you believe that Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you're going to Heaven. Yes, that means Catholics, Methodists, Protestant and so on and so forth.

I'm thinking you may have been in a Baptist Church that teaches Calvinism.

If you want to learn more on Calvinist views of Election, read A.W. Pinks "The Doctrine Of Election" found here http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Election/index.htm

[Rotobeast]

(04-26-2016, 10:40 PM)Beaker Wrote: I think a creator loves us all no matter what we do while here in the physical world. I believe we are all part of the same whole. The only example I can think of to illustrate what I mean is that we are all piece of one great soul...kind of like how individual cells make up a human. Therefore we are all "god". A creator is not separate from us and we do not require forgiveness. Sin is a concept created by men to control other men. We dont have to accept anyone as our savior as we are all parts of the same god. The problem is we dont recognize it and see ourselves as separate. That's where all the problems of mankind arise....seing ourselves as separate rather than part of the same whole.

I always see this as being in conjunction with Christianity.
Sin is an affront to ourselves (the oneness) and the diametric struggle needs to be resolved before the "individual" can return to the whole. Jesus was to teach us to love ourselves and show sacrifice for the whole.
Dunno... makes sense to me anyway.

[Belsnickel]

(04-26-2016, 11:47 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I always see this as being in conjunction with Christianity.
Sin is an affront to ourselves (the oneness) and the diametric struggle needs to be resolved before the "individual" can return to the whole. Jesus was to teach us to love ourselves and show sacrifice for the whole.
Dunno... makes sense to me anyway.

This makes sense to me, as well. Though the sacrifice of Jesus (and Buddha for that matter) was to show mankind that our sacrifices were no longer needed.

[GMDino]

(04-26-2016, 11:47 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I always see this as being in conjunction with Christianity.
Sin is an affront to ourselves (the oneness) and the diametric struggle needs to be resolved before the "individual" can return to the whole. Jesus was to teach us to love ourselves and show sacrifice for the whole.
Dunno... makes sense to me anyway.

And that is "religion" in a nutshell.

If it makes sense to you...you can believe it.

If you step back and question why an all powerful being would make a sacrifice of himself to himself to show the creatures he created he doesn't need a sacrifice anymore it stops making so much sense.

Then if you look and see all it did was create another riff in what people believe it makes even less sense.

Then the argument comes that that is because we are human and not perfect like god.  A god whose plan didn't work.

[xxlt]

(04-26-2016, 01:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Faith alone, the concept that we cannot, through our actions, justify the grace of God that we receive. That the grace of God is given to us through the sacrifice of Jesus. What's your opinion on it? It's a concept that has been tossed around for centuries and there is a lot of back and forth between theologians. Plenty of Bible verses are used to support it and plenty to go against it. It's a new concept to me that I have been trying to learn more about through my readings of Luther's works and I figured we might have some people on here that would enjoy the discussion.

So, sola fide, what does it mean to you? Are you in agreement with it or not? And responses from non-Christians are just as welcome, just don't be mocking/derogatory.

I didn't understand Sola Fide the way you did. Your second sentence says grace comes through Jesus' sacrifice. My understanding of "by faith alone" was that by believing (presuming demonstrated by being baptized and then maintaining/professing your belief) you achieve salvation - i.e. if you sin tremendously you will still enter heaven - and all the rest of it (Jesus death/resurrection) is just part of the narrative but the key is the individual profession (some say confession) of faith in God. So it isn't so much what Jesus did or didn't do (maybe you never heard that part of the "good news" or maybe it contained errata) but whether you believed that made all the difference.

This is contrasted with "deeds alone" - which says that your actions get your ticket to heaven punched. That is, you can believe with all your heart but if you sin you burn in hell. And likewise you could you could have doubts, but if you lived a good life you would enter heaven.

Some said the final measure was what was in your heart (by faith alone), some said the final measure was the life you lived (by deeds alone), and some said it was a combination. I don't know but I don't think too many people argue or think about this stuff anymore. I think many believe salvation is guaranteed regardless of your faith or your actions - i.e. God's love outweighs everything and no matter how sinful your conduct or how many times you denied God you will still be welcomed into heaven on the other side. And many believe baptism is the key - and what you believe or do is irrelevant - you got baptized and you are in.

Ultimately the whole thing for me at this point comes down to this. Yes all the other theories and arguments are interesting, but if their is a God or gods (I am an agnostic) then the ways of this God or these gods will never be grasped by humans. So, while interesting to reflect on ultimately it is an exercise in futility. If the gods or God exist(s) I tend to believe there would be no final judgment of a human's faith or conduct. A final judgment doesn't reconcile with the type of God or gods I can conceive of. But again, our ability to understand such things is terminally flawed, so maybe there is a big courtroom in the sky - it just doesn't make sense to me.

[GMDino]

(04-27-2016, 08:27 AM)xxlt Wrote: Ultimately the whole thing for me at this point comes down to this. Yes all the other theories and arguments are interesting, but if their is a God or gods (I am an agnostic) then the ways of this God or these gods will never be grasped by humans. So, while interesting to reflect on ultimately it is an exercise in futility. If the gods or God exist(s) I tend to believe there would be no final judgment of a human's faith or conduct. A final judgment doesn't reconcile with the type of God or gods I can conceive of. But again, our ability to understand such things is terminally flawed, so maybe there is a big courtroom in the sky - it just doesn't make sense to me.

This...a thousand times this.

Which is why everyone seems to "know" what their god wants them to do (through their "personal relationship" with him) and it always coincides with the way they want to live their life.