Talk:Sola fide

Article's head summary does not match the body
There is a real problem with this article, in that the head section says that Sola Fide is a protestant thing that is in distinction to Catholics and Orthodox, and yet the section on Ecumenical approaches clearly states that in fact the Lutherans and Catholics actually have no dispute and that also the Lutherans and Orthodox agree, though using different concepts

(The preamble to the Cathlic/Lutheran agreement[] says that the Lutherans agree that the Catholics don't actually hold what Luther was railing against, and the Catholics say that the Lutherans don't actually teach what the Councils anethematized...)  (I am not sure whether that leaves Calvinists, but predestinations are not really sola fide in the same way, anyway, are they?)

So what this means is that the summary at the top positively inteferes understanding with the real positions, as nutted out over the last 400 years. I think the best thing is to point out what the churches claim is their own positions and agreement, and make it clear that some claims of divisions are historically/religiously motivated, or based on understandings/misunderstandings by both sides that continue on. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Terminology
Two things bother me about terminology:

1) A few places "salvation" and "justification" seem to get interchanged. Alister McGrath has noted in a few places that in the 16th Cent, Protestants took salvation to include both justification and sanctification, whereas Catholics used the term justification to include both. Also Protestants took faith to mean primarily "trust", whereas Catholics often understood them to mean intellectual belief.

E.g. in the start of the "Roman Catholic view", it is said "The Roman Catholic view tends to exclude sola fide as grounds for justification, holding instead that good works are also necessary for salvation." The switch from justification to salvation is problematical. Protestants believe that good works are part of the overall work of regenerating a person. However they are seen as the consequence of Christ working with us, which happens because we are united to him in faith. Thus good works are part of the overall process of salvation, but not of justification. So the switch from justification to salvation could cause confusion.

2) In the section on "status of the doctrine" there is talk of "faith" meaning "faithfulness". Some people may have claimed that justification is by faithfulness, but I'm not aware of them. The more common view, which I don't see on the page, is that "faith" is understood as "trust". This is the famous "fiduciary faith." It's hard to imagine a page of sola fide that doesn't mention this. [There are lots of references, but a good one would be http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=783&contentID=57253&shortcutID=20289. "Justifying faith is trust in Christ and his redemptive work." ]

Hedrick (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Views of other groups

 * Other groups believe that faith is sufficient for salvation but not necessary.

I suppose that this is true, and interesting; but I think it is irrelevant. Is it necessary for neutrality, or even balance, to say that besides sola fide believers there are believers in something different? Mkmcconn 22:20 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary for neutrality or balance, but sometimes it helps to explain an idea by contrasting it with related or opposing ideas. In this case though, I'm inclined to leave it out unless there's a concrete example of an actual group that believes this. All I can think of is some form of universalism, in which case it wouldn't matter if you had faith or not. Wesley


 * Your point is especially valid for for Roman Catholicism, since the doctrine is formulated in contrast to the Catholic view (or at least, the Protestant understanding of the Catholic view); and that reference should be left in for that reason - unlike this one.

The article says that Restorationist groups deny sola fide. This is not true of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which is usually considered Restorationist yet fully accepts sola fide / justification by faith alone. Colin MacLaurin 17:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Romans 3:28
Regarding Luther's change to Romans 3:28, this was discussed in a book by an Orthodox theologian (name escapes me now) but independently confirmed by my wife, who was able to compare two German translations of the passage, one in a Luther translation of the NT and another in a Zwingli translation. Should be confirmable by anyone else with access to the same. Wesley 04:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Correct phrasing
The word "apparently" in the subtitles are misleading and very subjective. Some of those verses have many different interpretation from many different churches. (at least it wasn't apparent to me --;;) I changed it.. but i think someone needs to come up with a better word choice.. Highwind 00:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Would "Alleged support for sola fide in the NT" and "Alleged rejection of sola fide in the NT" be any better? This would suggest or emphasize that the NT doesn't contradict itself so much as different groups' interpretations of the NT contradict each other. Hopefully someone else will have a better idea. Wesley 03:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I like that~ cool! Highwind 08:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unclear text used for explaining Catholic view
The section on Catholic teaching includes a quote from the Catachism ''"No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods."

However, I think this misses a vital thing: that quote is a summary s. 2025, but the full section emphasizes something directly relevant to what it means in the context of sola fide: ''2010. Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions. ''

So I think that the use of s2025 rather than 2010 actually causes confusion rather than clarifying the Catholic teaching.

So my proposal is to use the 2010 text. Furthermore, I think there is a real problem that because the "ground rules" of Catholic teaching are not clearly stated, people go off on tangents that particular words can support, but are not the intent. So I propose to collect material from the Catechism into a clearer "ground rules" list.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sola Fide: has the meaning changed? Do Catholics agree?
This doctrine is accepted by many Protestants, including Lutherans and Baptists, and is rejected by Catholics.

I think it would be more accurate to say "This doctrine, as it is here defined, is... rejected by Catholics." Catholics do accept it when it is understood to mean "a person is only justified by faith," "only a person with faith can be justified," or "without faith it is impossible to be justified." Johnaugus


 * After seeing your comment, I modified the passage in question. However, during this process I came to the conclusion that the first paragraph in this section is probably not a fair description of sola fide.  Instead, it waters down this doctrine to the point that all Catholics and traditional Protestants would agree with what it says.
 * I suspect that some Protestants have modified this doctrine over the years, and this page really needs to distinguish Luther's original teaching (and perhaps different claims of what Luther's teaching meant) from the views of Protestants today.
 * The big sticking point is -- what does "faith" mean? If the word "faith" is never defined, anyone can believe in salvation by faith alone.  The paragraph I am complaining about avoided the word "faith" entirely.
 * I'd love to hear a Protestant view on this, especially from a traditional Reformed or LCMS believer. As a Catholic, when I hear Protestants today say "You are not saved just by believing -- you need to have a saving faith, not just any faith," it sounds to me as if they are saying "Faith alone doesn't save; this faith needs to be made active through your works."   My question is:  if Luther heard them say this, would he interpret it as I am interpreting it? Lawrence King 07:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The big sticking point is -- what does "faith" mean? If the word "faith" is never defined, anyone can believe in salvation by faith alone.  The paragraph I am complaining about avoided the word "faith" entirely.
 * I'd love to hear a Protestant view on this, especially from a traditional Reformed or LCMS believer. As a Catholic, when I hear Protestants today say "You are not saved just by believing -- you need to have a saving faith, not just any faith," it sounds to me as if they are saying "Faith alone doesn't save; this faith needs to be made active through your works."   My question is:  if Luther heard them say this, would he interpret it as I am interpreting it? Lawrence King 07:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd love to hear a Protestant view on this, especially from a traditional Reformed or LCMS believer. As a Catholic, when I hear Protestants today say "You are not saved just by believing -- you need to have a saving faith, not just any faith," it sounds to me as if they are saying "Faith alone doesn't save; this faith needs to be made active through your works."   My question is:  if Luther heard them say this, would he interpret it as I am interpreting it? Lawrence King 07:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * In a well-know theology textbook, "Christian Theology: An Introduction" (as well as other places, but this is the most accessible), the Church historian Alister McGrath maintains that the issue was at least in part a misunderstanding based on terms. The usual Protestant definition classified salvation into justification and sanctification. Justification is our status before God. It is the result of pure grace, which we receive in faith. But having been forgiven by God and placed in a right relationship with him, Christ work within us to renew us, and we are expected to show this in good works. However Trent, along with other Catholic works, used justification for the whole process. They also tended to understand faith as intellectual belief. So Catholics understood Protestants as saying that all of salvation was based on intellectual belief. That's not at all what Protestants meant. The traditional definition of "faith" in this context is "trust". Note that faith is not the *cause* of justification, but the way we receive it. That is, God puts us in a right relationship with himself by grace, through Christ's death. He does this before we are in a position to do anything on our own. All we can do is receive this, trusting him for our justification. For Calvin at least faith established a union with Christ (he called it a "mystic union"). Through that, Christ works to transform us. This transformed person then does good works because we now love God and our fellow man. The debate was never whether Christians do good works. It was logical order in which various things happened. Protestants wanted to make sure that action was seen as a result of God's work with us, and not a precondition. The reason is that good works tend to have a different flavor if they are done in response to God's love or if they are done because we think we have to do them in order to get to the point where God will justify us, or to maintain our status before God. I believe that currently Catholics normally believe that God initiates the process. So if you sort out the terminology, they might well agree with Protestants in how things start (although they may tend to involve Baptism in a slightly different way). (This may not have been true in the 16th Cent. A common Catholic view was that we were expected to do what we could on our own, and God would then respond with grace.) However I think there's still a difference in what happens ongoing. The theoretical difference, which I think is still present, is that Catholics see grace as something that is infused into us. Our ongoing status before God depends upon that. Any mortal sin breaks that relationship. And there are enough mortal sins that this is not something that happens only rarely to unusually bad people. Protestants believe that our status before God is entirely due to his grace. And that grace is seen as God's commitment to us, i.e. it's external to us rather than infused in us. If we disobey, he may discipline us, but we don't cease being justified. Calvin's mystical union is probably a fairly close analog to the Catholic infused grace. Because of our union with Christ, he works in us. But it is never envisioned as something that's truly resident in us. Rather, Christ works in us through his union with us, but from outside. That's why no matter how we sin, Christ's grace can still remain. In some current scholarship (particularly N.T.Wright) this is seen as God's faithfulness to his covenant. Wright understands justification in Paul's letters as being the recognition of our status before God rather than the status itself. However when he draws out the implications of his view, the role of faith and obedience isn't very different from the traditional Protestant one. Hedrick (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Those ideas of salvation by faith alone which are intended to contrast with the traditional Catholic view, are well-expressed by the confessional documents quoted in the article. While I do believe that the Catholic and the Protestant views are gradually approaching one another, they have not yet merged.  Trent is (generally speaking) being much more liberally interpreted by both parties, than in the past.   And, Protestants are less typically presenting their view of salvation in a piece-meal fashion - which has caused, and still does cause, differences of understanding and aggravates the disagreement.  The sides are listening more carefully to one another - and doing so is less likely to raise accusations of betrayal.  It is good to understand one another better.  But, while it's difficult for anyone on either side to represent their side with authority (especially the Protestant side), "traditional Reformed or LCMS" believers, for example, are not convinced that the Reformation was not necessary.  Mkmcconn (Talk)  08:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The question is not just what "faith" means (does it include hope, love, and faithfulness or is it mere assent?), but how "only/alone" works in the overall phrase (the difference between "a person is only justified by faith and cannot be justified without it" and "faith, and faith alone, justifies a person"). Depending on the answers to questions like these, Catholics agree or disagree with the doctrine. Even many Protestants seem to disagree over the meaning of sola fide. Mkmcconn: though you say "Those ideas of salvation by faith alone which are intended to contrast with the traditional Catholic view, are well-expressed by the confessional documents quoted in the article," several of those quotes could be interpreted to agree with Catholic doctrine. It really does matter what each group means by "faith" and how they intend "only/alone" to work in the overall construction. Johnaugus


 * I can agree that "it really does matter what each group means by 'faith'", and it is certainly no secret that Protestants disagree with one another over the meaning of sola fide. But, I really think that you are over-simplifying.  None except anti-nomians believe that faith by itself justifies (nuda fide, I think is the derogatory term).  Both, Catholics and Protestants believe that "full" faith is a principle of faithfulness, not bare assent to propositions.  Both parties have been aware of these similarities from the beginning; and yet, the disagreement is as strong as ever.


 * As the final few ecumenical quotes indicate, there are attempts to interpret and explain Protestant documents of faith in such a way that a Roman Catholic would not necessarily disagree with them. However, these attempts are only partially successful, and suspected by some very vocal critics of being after all a brute exercise in distortion.  And anyway, all of these works intentionally avoid specifics either of Protestant or of Catholic doctrine and practice - not surreptitiously, but because they are young efforts.


 * By the way, the article on Faith is terrible. The  Catholic view is no longer even explicitly represented there. Maybe you could spearhead a rewrite.  Mkmcconn (Talk)  16:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When you say "Both, Catholics and Protestants believe that 'full' faith is a principle of faithfulness, not bare assent to propositions" I do not disagree, as you seem to think. Antinomians are very rare in my experience, though they exist. As I said before, there's more than one question in the sola fide issue: what "faith" means and how "only/alone" works in the overall phrase. "A person is only justified by faith and cannot be justified without it" is different from "faith, and faith alone, justifies a person," but either construction can be understood in more than one way depending on what "faith" means.

And I don't think I'm "oversimplifying." The sola fide issue isn't the only one. There are many different conceptions of "justification" among different Christians too. So even if everyone agreed to the same meaning (or meanings?) of sola fide, not all differences would be solved yet. I wish it were easier for all our sakes, but it's not. :(

Thanks very much for the heads-up on the Faith article. If it's something I can help improve, I will try! Johnaugus

I think it is important that when studying the solas, one understands all of them before attempting to draw a conclusion on it's meaning. For example, Lutherans believe that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Roman Catholic Church, while at times using similar language, still officially holds that faith, in order to save, must be accompanied by (or "infused with") some "work" or "love" active within a Christian.

The "Protestant Distinctive" heading
Mkmcconn, I agree with the changes you made in this section, except for one thing: the headings.

I had changed "A Protesant Distinctive" to "The doctrine of sola fide". This was a lame title, but I do feel this section needs a general title. The first paragraph describes the meaning of the doctrine. This paragraph does not describe or defend the claim that this doctrine is distinctively Protestant.

So the "Protestant Distinctive" heading should be a subheading above the second paragraph, which does say who believes it.

Also, consider this: Luther clearly believed that Paul taught sola fide, and Luther very likely believed that Augustine taught sola fide. Unless you are willing to call Paul and Augustine "Protestants", then the statement that "sola fide is a Protestant distinctive" is a bit controversial. In any event, I think this claim shouldn't be the over-heading of a major section. Lawrence King 06:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also think it is a little imprecise to say that all Protestants believe this. I'm certainly not a Methodist theologian, but by my reading of the doctrine of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, it's not faith alone, but faith with a penitent heart. That's a subtle distinction that puts it closer to the Catholic faith theologically than to many other Protestant faiths. Similarly, the Methodist Church does not teach that once saved, you are always saved, and as the table says, Wesley believed in the need for continued sanctification, which contradicts the description of it as an event. In much the same way, the Catholics believe that baptism is just the start of a spiritual journey, not the destination. I'd be very curious to understand, then, how the Methodist Church is described as believing in sola fide and the Catholic faith is not. I'm sure there are some subtle distinctions I'm missing here, but it seems to me that if you drew a map of faith and put a dot for the Catholic faith in New York, belief-wise, you'd mark Methodists somewhere near D.C., with most of the other Protestant faiths somewhere near Adelaide.... 68.165.1.189 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction/addition request
The NRSV Bible states in its introduction to Habakkuk (perhaps presumptuously) that the doctrine is based on Hab 2.4b, which was the influence for Rom 1.17 (cited in the article), and also Gal 3.11. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the subject could find a way to insert the potential influence in the article. Eduardo Cuellar 18 Aug 2005


 * There are probably enough such verses to warrant a separate list of "Old Testament verses used to support Sola fide." Psalm 50 (51 in most English Bibles) and Micah 6:6-8 are two that come to mind. Wesley 06:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

History
There is nothing here from the standpoint of history, particularly social history, historical theology, etc. As if doctrine just pops out of a realm of pure abstraction and exists in hermetic bubbles of thought. Dan Knauss

I'm not sure I understand your statement in regards to the lack of historical theology within this document. Sola Fide is one of the core statements and teaching of the reformation, heavily emphasized by Martin Luther. While I would agree that there is only brief mention here, there is a link to the Wikipedia publication on Martin Luther, which goes into much more detail.

Couldn't find a place to add this, but wanted to make mention - you cited the Articles of Religion from the Methodist Episcopal church, however in many places this is still a seperate denomination. It was not involved in the merger with the Evangelical United Brethren and the Methodist church which formed The United Methodist Church. Just thought I'd point that out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert fulton1 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Biased Point of View
If this page is to conform to the neutral point-of-view pillar of Wikipedia it needs to explain why some Christians don't follow the protestant belief of sola fide. If you would like to explain why refuting sola fide should NOT be on this page then start here.

J.H 15:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This article reads as a defence to Roman Catholicism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fabiodrn (talk • contribs).

The phrase "... See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." was previously inaccurately representing itself as biblical text from James 2. Doesn't the New Testament verses provided under "New Testament verses used to refute sola fide" provide an adequate refutal?

Krb106 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Roman Catholic position and other positions relative to sola fide need to be presented. We have to imagine ourselves as explaining what sola fide is to someone who never heard of it in the manner of an encyclopedia. All sides would need to be presented with the "narrator" being the neutral observer. Something like that as neutral point of view.--Drboisclair 04:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

removed section: Salvation verses outside of faith and works
While I would prefer to remove the entire section that lists verses, can the inclusion of these two verses be justified?
 * 1 Corinthians 7:15d-16
 * God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
 * 1 Timothy 2:15
 * Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

What scholar anywhere would interpret these verses as having anything to do with the instrumental means of justification, which is the subject of this article? &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree to the removal of this section for the reasons stated. I guess that the rationale for having it in there is that some interpreted the passages to mean that they leave room for one receiving salvation in a way other than through faith alone. These passages are a bit unclear, so they need to be interpreted in the light of the clear passages ("Scripture interprets Scripture").--Drboisclair 04:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bible verses
The section on Bible verses is quite long. Both sides should be reduced IMHO, and the various interpretations of the verses given from reliable sources to demonstrate how each side understands them. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It should stay and please understand that Calvinism is after Luther in precidents. The reason why it should stay is because other articles reference this so they don't have to compile a list. The list is actually valid. It is precisely what Sola fide should is about. Presenting the case in the context of Sola scriptura. (F0xfree 09:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC))

I'm not saying the lists should be eliminated, just reduced. I'm sure Catholics et al. have something to say about the "Pro" verses and Protestants have something to say about the "Con" verses. Just listing verses without any explanation as to how they are understood is not exceedingly helpful, IMHO.

As for the template, Calvinism considers the solas an essential part of its theology, too. It was listed first in the text so that it would appear second (in left-to-right reading order). For that reason, I have restored the template. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * These verses need to stay, but be written into paragraphs so they can be understood.Rogue Commander 22:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

More on the Calvinism template
F0xfree wrote on my talk page:


 * Hi there. I think it would be much better to display Calvanism in the historical passages that cover it rather than putting it next to Luther because there are thousands of other denominations that should be included if we use your standard. Please respond. Thanks you.

I would suggest that we should be consistent: either add all templates at the point of the historical passages or keep them all above. While the distinctive was emphasized by Luther, it is not exclusive to Lutheranism, and Calvinism is a broad term for the theology of the Reformed churches, which is a sizable group. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But why are not all Protestant denominations included then? (F0xfree 06:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Conceivably more could be included, though not many place as much stress on the doctrine as do the Luteran and Reformed churches. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 01:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Biased View in "Protestant Distinctive"?
"The doctrine, though never defined explicitly in the scriptural texts, holds that it is not through personal goodness that sinners are reconciled to God."

Hi! I copied this quote from the "Protestant Distinctive" section because I think that someone may want to edit that section in order to gain more neutrality on the issue since this line seems to imply a leaning towards the Catholic POV. Namely, it undermines Protestants and claims that they have no "scriptual" standing. I feel that it would be better if this section said that Protestants often use Ephesians 2:8-9 ("For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast") as a defense for sola fide. But, I'm new so please respond either way with your thoughts! 204.95.32.3 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Kobukson


 * I'm a protestant, and I think it's fine as is. The doctrine isn't spelled out explicitly as we put it forth (e.g., Rom 3.28 says "justified by faith" [n.b., no "alone"]), but rather it seems (at least to me and other protestants) to be the general teaching on the subject. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the appearance of a non-NPOV in the current edition of this section, I replaced the Protestant Distinctive section with a "Justification in Lutheranism" section. If at any point you want to reintroduce the old section, I don't mind, but I feel that the Lutheranism section deserves to be placed first since it is the best sourced part of the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Joint Baptist-Catholic statement
I remember a while back there was a joint statement from the Pope as well as an association of Baptists on this matter. I was wondering if anyone knows what that statement said exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my bad I was thinking of the Lutheran World Federation/Catholic Church statement. But apparently it's not unofficial, or at least this statement isn't:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-official-statement_en.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Contrasting Passages
I have deleted a section titled "Contrasting Passages" as it was little more than a transcribed sermon refuting the Catholic position. It might be salvageable with some editing, but didn't add anything, and was written in the first person. 128.143.247.164 (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sola fide and Intellectualism
There should maybe be non-original research about the relationship between sola fide and contemporary trends in intellectualism. One of the most frequent criticisms of sola fide is to link it with the concept of fideism, which is almost to say that it is the root cause of anti-intellectualism within Evangelical circles in modern America today, as well as a factor of religious fundamentalism in general. ADM (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Structure
The article needs to be restuctured. It is a bit of a mess right now. -- Secisek (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. My thoughts exactly.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ephesians 2:8-10
I was looking through the scripture verses used to support and to oppose sola fide and I noticed that Ephesians 2:8-10 was listed under support. Shouldn't it be Ephesians 2:8-9 under support and Ephesians 2:10 under oppose? Especially since the Catholic view section cites those verses as one of the reasons that the Catholic Church opposes sola fide? Looking for input. Thanks. Farsight001 (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you study the passages closely, you will see that we are only saved by his grace, and not by works, to avoid boasting. But works are still crucial, since God chose us for salvation for the purpose of good works. After all, Eph 2:8,9 shows one aspect of salvation, which is justification. This is part of the salvation package; we are regenerated, justified, sanctified, and glorified. Eph 2:10 focuses on sanctification.Nuvitauy07 (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge Discussion
Did you know that Justification by Faith redirects to here but Justification by faith redirects to Justification (theology). Looks like these should be merged? filceolaire (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While that is strange, I don't think merging would solve anything--just make both pages more convoluted. Both these pages are a big mess. Catholic & Protestant apologists keep on adding material to support their position or alternatively, mess with their opponent's position. I don't see any of that stopping. What we need is someone with a reasonably fairminded (not a denominational or Rationalist based apologetic history) history of theology book(s) to go through and rewrite both articles. Justification (theology) would very much benifit from a purely historical look on what Christians believed about Justification over the ages. Only a historical approach to the article will unify currently disparate sections.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could have an excerpt on Sola fide in Justification (theology), but I think the article has enough information to be self-sustaining... (70.15.6.140 (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Andrew)

I think non-Protestant Christians would find this suggestion that Sola Fide and Justification (the theological concept)are one and the same highly insulting. It certainly seems one-sided. It totally would leave out Orthodox and Catholic Christians... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.196.69 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am currently writing an paper on the reformation and the article is pretty biased towards the catholic point of view. Protestants don't disregard good works, but rather see them a rung of ladder towards faith. Someone needs to rewrite it a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashjihad (talk • contribs) 03:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article is sort of a mess. I agree that the best overall organization would be historical. What we really need is a short version of McGrath's book. As to a separate article, it's pretty common for Wikipedia articles to have a couple of pargraphs that get expanded into a separate article, but that's no quite what is going on here.

Starting with scriptural sections, as this does, makes sense in theory but not in reality. Justification wasn't an explicit theme in the Gospels, so the way you apply the Gospels is going to depend upon your point of view. That's even true of Paul. There are dozens of readings of Paul, each with theological implications. There are Hebrew terms used in the OT, but Christian doctrinal treatments of justification have only the loosest connection with the OT context. If you're going to start with the OT, as the article does, you'd want someone who really knows current OT scholarship to present it as free as possible from the later arguments. I don't think any of the contributors so far could do that. So it's probably safer to structure it according to the history of the doctrine, or even just on the major doctrinal positions for which we can find contributors.

You can see how I'd prefer to deal with this issue by the article on Imputed Righteousness, the first three sections of which are from me. But that would require a degree of cooperation that may be hard to get.

Hedrick (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - I would disagree with a merge between Justification (theology) and sola fide. Each of the other five solas] has their own page, and sola fide deserves its own. And I believe there is enough that could be said about the general topic of Justification, regardless of how it is earned, to justify its own page. That being said, I'm certain that there is plenty of opportunity to link the two pages at appropriate points because they are related.

Agree - I would agree with a merge of concept between Justification by faith / Justification by Faith. Both pages should exist as redirects, and both should point to the same page. Sola fide would indicate that Justification is simply by faith alone, whereas Justification (theology) allows for Justification by faith, by faith + works, or even by works alone, or for that matter, even other methods that I haven't covered here. In this case, I would argue that both redirect pages should point directly to sola fide, with a redirect template placed at the top of the sola fide page that looks like this: Dawynn (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dawynn.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that they should be merged. They are related but they are not the same thing. Justification is not done by faith alone, and that is what sola fide is. They are separate in the Christian faith and should be separate in their understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.120.70.10  (talk • contribs)  22:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I also oppose the merge; since the consensus is not to merge, I'm removing the tags. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sola fide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512021427/http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/577 to http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/577
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=19&cuItem_itemID=11833
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150214094857/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/MeierJames.pdf to http://wlsessays.net/files/MeierJames.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150214094857/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/MeierJames.pdf to http://wlsessays.net/files/MeierJames.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150214094857/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/MeierJames.pdf to http://wlsessays.net/files/MeierJames.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140725061927/http://www.orlutheran.com/html/methodism.html to http://www.orlutheran.com/html/methodism.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Section Sola fide and the Early Church Fathers
Many of the quotes, about 15 are not from primary sources. The primary sources and translations are widely available. However, many of the quotes reference what someone says that someone said as part of a biased commentary on the matter. The Church Fathers writings are well documented but none of these are referenced. This section should perhaps be removed as the editor likely copied and pasted from some site as a repository quotes for others to copy and paste in debates. This is not the purpose for the wikipedia. Perhaps this page can be cleaned up by creating a page purely for such quotes, after these have been cleaned and the bogus quotes removed. DeusImperator (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"Introduction"
This portion is a mess, editors. I even smell well-organized vandalism since last time I made edits.

Those with no citations will be removed. - MainBody (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The Place of Works
The assertion "This excludes, for example, the Catholic doctrine that men are saved by faith and works." is unsupported and a caricature of its teaching. A concordance search of the occurrences of "works" in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church turns up only 3 places where the word "faith" is nearby. The first, CCC 1021, refers to Christ's judgement according to one's works; the second (CCC 1815) is a quotation of Jas 2:26 ("faith apart from works is dead"); the third (CCC 1966) refers to "grace ... given ... through faith ... [which] works through charity". No mention of works as a part of justification. I am therefore removing this statement. Firstrock (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article has a clear anti-Catholic bias. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, Catholic.com is spinning the story. Not mentioning Faith-Works Salvation by words doesn't exclude the nature of the Catholic faith-plus-works teaching. Read carefully the Catechism (CCC) Par2010, Par2027, and Par2036 and Par2068. In Roman Catholicism, human efforts are means to obtain/complete salvation. - MainBody (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove Section Sola fide and the Early Church Fathers
After reviewing the section regarding Sole Fide and the Early Church Fathers, I believe it would be best to remove the section. By letting the quotes stand on their own, it removes context that would be unreasonable for the average person to understand off-hand. Due to its complex history, it is far too easy for an individual to anachronistically see their views in Church Fathers, and proof-texting them in this article only contributes to that issue. I will give a few examples of what I am talking about.

Currently, the only quote from Justin Martyr in the article is this: Justin Martyr (d. 165) in his Dialogue with Trypho: “No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer. . . are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account.”

This, standing on its own, would falsely lead someone reading this article to believe that Justin Martyr believes in sola fide. However, Justin clarifies his position in his other works, such as in his first apology:

Chapter XII: "...seeing that we hold this view, that it is alike impossible for the wicked, the covetous, the conspirator, and for the virtuous, to escape the notice of God, and that each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions."

Chapter XVI: "And let those who are not found living as He taught, be understood to be no Christians, even though they profess with the lip the precepts of Christ; for not those who make profession, but those who do the works, shall be saved, according to His word: Not every one who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of My Father which is in heaven. For whosoever hears Me, and does My sayings, hears Him that sent Me..."

Emphasis mine. Another good example is Augustine. It is quoted in the article, and it puts his other quotes in context:

"Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love."

In a sense, Augustine would affirm faith alone, but his definition of "faith" is different than the modern protestant concept - his by definition includes working through love (more similar to an Eastern orthodox perspective) which distinguishes it from the doctrine of sola fide even if it uses those exact words.

And even to that extent, with the quotes I provided, there will be people who disagree with my interpretations of them. Which gets to my main point: there really is no way to objectively present these quotes and add all of the context one would need short of just linking every single work any of those church fathers have made, which would be a convoluted mess.

My recommendation is to keep the part about Catholic and Protestant scholars alike agreeing there were certainly church fathers that taught sola fide, and if there needs to be anything else in that section, quotes from those scholars expressing their opinions of which church fathers did. Having the quotes stand on their own really serves no purpose in the context of this article and doesn't provide anything really meaningful to it; we can leave the proof-texting of church fathers to religious apologists.

To clarify: I do believe that some of this quotes on their own accurately represent the belief of the individual, but most of them are missing so much context that they are essentially redundant at best or misleading at worst.

I would be interested in other viewpoints and opinions on this.

Justalittleflower (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is original research.  Remove it.  WP:NOR. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and removed it, but now the section has a little bit of a protestant bias (mentions that some church fathers believed in sola fide, but does not include the catholic/orthodox response to that proposition.) If you can think of a way to balance it that would be great, or maybe we should just scrap the section altogether. Justalittleflower (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, the rest of the text you say was according to James Buchanan (minister) belief, that it's not the general catholic or protestant belief. I removed the controversial text. The article needed bias. Rafaelosornio (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with the current version of the article. There's no need for the section at all. The Buchanan reference was polemical and obscure. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

there are two important lessons here
I can't believe I'm spending any time on this. I waded through this mess of an article as much as I could stand, and then I waded through the Talk page (even though it lacked the usual comic relief of 10,000-word arguments over US vs UK spelling). But I am actually completely serious here: This all teaches me two important lessons: 1) A man doesn't need to know what *he himself* thinks (much less understanding opposing views) to have a good knock-down dragged-out fight on an issue; 2) ultimately, the only thing that reallyalacarte (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC) matters is whether the home team or the away team is represented.


 * What's going on? (Rev) Bastique ☎ call me! 01:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Origins of the Term
This section plays fast and loose: e.g.

''Historically, the expression—"justification by faith alone"— has appeared in a number of Catholic bible translations: the Nuremberg Bible (1483) in Galatians 2:16 ("δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ... διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ") has "nur durch den glauben", and the Italian translations of 1476, 1538, and 1546 have "ma solo per la fede" or "per la sola fede". The official Italian Bible of the Catholic Church, La Sacra Bibbia della Conferenza Episcopale Italiana (2008), in Galatians 2:16, reads in part: "but only through faith in Jesus Christ" (ma soltanto per mezzo della fede).''

"Only through faith" is not the same as "through faith alone". "Only through" is not the same as "faith alone." Both deny alternatives to faith, but the the former does not exclude needed adjuncts to or outworkings of faith, as the second does.

The section needs to be edited with a more exacting eye, IMHO.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)