Restless Heart: 13 – “By Faith alone?”

Luther

Since it is the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, Nessa and I are devoting the next to episodes to the two key doctrines of the Reformation: “Sola Fide” (Faith Alone) and “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone). Today we’ll begin by looking at the first of these doctrines, Sola Fide.

Please subscribe to this podcast using iTunesGoogle Play or Podbean. If you have any feedback or would like to pose a question for an upcoming episode, you can send us a message from the website or tweet us at @davidandnessa.

Episode 13: By faith alone? (Download)

 

— Show Notes —

• The venue Nessa visited in San Diego with dueling pianos was Shout House.

• The book our C.S. Lewis reading group has started discussing is The Four Loves.

• The novels by Taylor Marshall which are set in the Early Church are entitled The Sword and the Serpent.

• Over the next two weeks we’re going to look at “Sola Fide” (Faith Alone) and “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone)

• Luther thought that Sola Fide was the central element of Christianity:

“If the doctrine of justification is lost, the whole of Christian doctrine is lost”
– Luther, Lectures On Galatians

• I quoted from the Protestant apologetics site “Got Questions”:

“Sola fide or faith alone is a key point of difference between not only Protestants and Catholics but between biblical Christianity and almost all other religions and teachings. The teaching that we are declared righteous by God (justified) on the basis of our faith alone and not by works is a key doctrine of the Bible and a line that divides most cults from biblical Christianity…

If we abandon the doctrine of justification by faith, we abandon the only way of salvation…

The Bible teaches that those that trust Jesus Christ for justification by faith alone are imputed with His righteousness, while those who try to establish their own righteousness or mix faith with works will receive the punishment due to all who fall short of God’s perfect standard”
–  GotQuestions.org (Emphasis added)

• A key text for Luther in relation to his doctrine of Sola Fide was:

“For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law”
– Romans 3:28

However, when he translated it, he added an additional word:

“For we maintain that a person is justified by faith ALONE apart from the works of the law”
– Romans 3:28

To justify this change, Luther responded thus:

“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.'”
– An Open Letter on Translating by Martin Luther

(The term “papist” here refers to Catholics)

• Luther was a master at insults. So much so, that today you can generate an insult from the Luther Insult Generator.

• Other important texts which were used to justify “Faith Alone” were Galatians 2:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9.

• When Paul talks about “works”, he is talking about the works of the Mosaic Law. In fact, he spends a lot of time in his letters comparing the Old Covenant with Moses to the New Covenant with Jesus.

• There only verse of the Bible which speaks of “faith alone” is the following passage from the Epistle of James:

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”
– James 2:24

Luther referred to this epistle as an “epistle of straw” and he moved it to the appendix of his translation of the Bible:

“We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.”
–  Luther’s works, vol. 54: Table Talk

• Nessa asked about what a Catholic should do if he “has a beef” with the Catholic Church. I suggested that it would probably depend upon the kind of issue at hand:

1. Doctrinal Issue
If you disagree with Catholic doctrine, first of all make sure that what you’re rejecting actually is the Catholic teaching on the matter and not some distortion of it. Once you have done this, find yourself a knowledgable Catholic to explain the basis of the doctrine.

2. Issues of Scandal
Reform yourself first! Be an example for others to imitate, imitating St. Francis and St. Dominic.

• I discussed my approach when discussing the Epistle of James. I ask a series of questions:

1. Can a dead faith save you? No? So you’re saying that you need a faith that’s alive?
2. Can a barren faith save you? No? So you’re saying that you need a fruitful faith?
3. Can an incomplete faith save you? No? So you’re saying that you need a complete faith?

• This then leads to another round of questions:

1. How is faith given life?
2. How is a barren faith made fruitful?
3. What is the difference between a complete faith and an incomplete faith?

The answer, according to the Epistle of James, is “Works”. In his letter, James teaches that faith must be living, fruitful and complete:

1. Living Faith
“In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead
– James 2:17

2. Fruitful Faith
“Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren?”
– James 2:20

3. Complete Faith
“[Abraham’s] faith was made complete by what he did
– James 2:22

• On the subject of faith and works, I quote CS Lewis who said:

“Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ…it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary”
– Mere Christianity 

You should listen to my C.S. Lewis podcast, The Eagle and Child.

• The Catholic Church does not teach a works-based righteousness. She condemned this heresy (“Pelagianism”) in the Fifth Century! 

• I quote Lewis a second time when he’s explaining how the divine life should be nurtured and protected:

“Your natural life is derived from your parents; that does not mean it will stay there if you do nothing about it. You can lose it by neglect, or you can drive it away by committing suicide. You have to feed it and look after it: but always remember you are not making it, you are only keeping up a life you got from someone else. In the same way a Christian can lose the Christ-life which has been put into him, and he has to make efforts to keep it. But even the best Christian that ever lived is not acting on his own steam – he is only nourishing or protecting a life he could never have acquired by his own efforts”
– Mere Christianity

• The pithiest summary of salvation really comes from St. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians:

“The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love”
– Galatians 5:6

• Pope Emeritus Benedict articulated this in one of

Being “just” simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love
– Pope Benedict XVI, Wednesday Audience, 19th November 2008

One good Lawrence deserves another

Yesterday was the Feast of St. Lawrence, so to mark this occasion I thought I would give a quick “tip of the hat” to another Lawrence, Dr. Lawrence Feingold.

Now, I’ve never actually met Dr. Feingold, but I have heard many of his talks and they’ve all been, without exception, brilliant. He comes across as unassuming, yet he clearly knows his stuff and is genuinely excited by the material he’s presenting.

I can’t recall exactly how it came about, but towards the end of 2009 I followed a hyperlink that took me to the website belonging to The Association of Hebrew Catholics. On that website I found the first couple of lectures by Dr. Feingold in his series “Themes of the Early Church Fathers“. I liked his tone and style immediately. At that time I had just started to discover these early Christian writers and Dr. Feingold’s series was a superb catalyst in helping familiarize me with the Early Church.

Read more

The Senses of Scripture

Fairly early on in the life of our Bible Study Group in San Diego, we took some time to read through the section of the Catechism beginning in paragraph #101 which addresses the subject of Sacred Scripture. We did this because when I first read that portion of the Catechism I was delighted to discover some truly wonderful guidance for understanding more fully the depth of God’s word.

In this post I would like to take some time to discuss the material outlined in the section of the Catechism entitled “The Senses of Scripture” (CCC #115). In five short paragraphs, it explains that there are two primary senses of Scripture: “Literal” and “Spiritual”, with the latter sense being subdivided into three additional subcategories: “Allegorical”, “Moral” and “Anagogical”.

Senses

Let’s look at each of these senses in turn…
Read more

Pope writes another great blog entry

No, not that Pope. There is a priest in Washington DC whom I have long regarded as my Virtual Chaplain, completely unbeknownst to him!

Virtual Internet Pastor

During my years of wandering I lacked a spiritual director or even a regular parish (this blog isn’t called “Restless Pilgrim” for nothing!). During those wilderness years I had a three month stint in Washington DC and, towards the end of my time there, I discovered Msgr. Pope’s parish.

I greatly enjoyed my visits – my exposure to gospel music until then had been limited, but I loved the enthusiastic singing I heard there. What impressed me most though was the preaching…

Msgr. Pope’s homilies were of good length, exegetical, impassioned and practical. I had often been critical of the standard of homilies in the Catholic world and hearing this kind of preaching was a breath of fresh air.

After my visa expired I left Washington DC and continued my wanderings around England and the USA. Fortunately, I soon discovered Msgr. Pope’s blog, together with his homily recordings and podcast feed. This meant that whether I was living in London, San Diego or somewhere in between, I received the same teaching. It was like having a regular pastor again 🙂

Read more

“But that’s not in the Bible!”

As a Catholic, I often hear  from Protestants the exclamation of “But that’s not in the Bible!” during our discussion of Catholic doctrine and practice. Now, while I think that Catholicism can be more than adequately defended from the Bible, during these conversations I always feel that it’s necessary to point out some general issues with this objection. In today’s post I would like to outline the three main problems that can be highlighted…

Bible

Read more

The curious case of celibacy

I’ve written quite a bit lately about my recent period of discernment. I’m sure I will write some more on this subject sometime in the future, but for now I would just like to mention one other thing that has come up during this time.

When I began in earnest to pray about my vocation, I contacted a handful of friends, explained the situation and asked them to pray for me. Also, during this time, when friends asked me “What’s new?” I told them about my discernment (with varying levels of detail) and some of my thoughts about my vocation.

Apart from a few notable exceptions, I noticed a consistent trend among my non-Catholic Christian friends. Whenever I mentioned the word “celibacy”, I almost immediately encountered some resistance, regardless of whether I was talking about celibate life as a layman, priest or monk.

Read more

Quick Apology: “What about pregnancy in case of rape?”

Today marks the final most in my series of articles to mark the March For Life. I’d like to end with a post concerning one of the toughest situations concerning abortion: pregnancies which are brought about by rape or incest. Such cases, according to Planned Parenthood accounts for less than 1% of abortions. Today I would like to explain in humility how I try to respond when this difficult issue is raised.

Objection

It is not unusual to find people who are against abortion, but who grant an exception for these “hard cases”. For example, I have heard the following:

“Don’t misunderstand me, I think abortion is wrong, but I can’t say I’m fully pro-life. I think that if a girl gets raped and finds herself pregnant, she should be able to get an abortion, otherwise she’d have a constant reminder of what happened to her for the next nine months. It just seems cruel to force her to go through with the pregnancy. Would you really expect her to raise the child of her rapist?”

How might you respond to this understandably emotionally-charged objection?

Response

When pro-life advocates respond to pro-choice objections, there is a great emphasis on logical consistency and reasoning. However, particularly when the subject of rape is raised, this can have the unintended consequence of making the pro-lifer appear unfeeling and clinical.

Therefore, throughout the abortion debate, but especially when the subject of rape is raised, I think it’s important to communicate a genuine compassion and empathy prior to offering the logical rebuttal. We need to show that we understand the tremendous trauma of such an event and the great burden which has now been placed on the woman without her consent.

Why is abortion wrong?

When someone tells me that he thinks abortion is wrong except in the case of rape, I usually postpone discussing the question of rape and instead first spend a little bit of time asking that person why he is generally against abortion.

The person will usually explain that he recognizes that the unborn are defenseless human beings who therefore should not be killed. If that is the case, I will ask if any of this changes as a result of the circumstances of the conception. Is the unborn child any less defenseless? Is the unborn child any less human?

The truth is that the child conceived in rape is just as valuable as the child conceived in love. Here is a one of many signs I saw at March For Life last year:

ConceivedFromRapeThe woman holding this sign was not responsible for the circumstances of her conception.

How many victims?

I think it’s also important to take a step back and ask ourselves why rape is such a terrible crime. It’s awful because an innocent person has her body violated in an act of violence by a stronger aggressor. Given this description, is abortion really that different? The act of rape made one victim, but abortion makes another, compounding the first act of violence with another.

If a rapist is brought to justice, he will not receive the death penalty for his horrendous felony. Does it seem reasonable that the child, who has committed no crime and never asked to be conceived, to receive a punishment which even the rapist would not receive?

Read more

1 112 113 114 115 116 137