Observation about sola fide

This comes to mind in regard to a recent post. In it we see St. Thomas quoting Luke 7:47: "Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much." The observation to be made here is that Christ attributes the forgiveness of sins to Mary Magdalene's love, not to her faith. But this flies in the face of the Protestant's claims about sola fide, wherein he says that he is saved by faith in Christ alone.

Now the Catholic does not have difficulties with this passage: we acknowledge what it says, and we say with St. Thomas (as discussed in the aforementioned post) that God rewards what he has given. But it seems to me that the Protestant cannot easily "handle" this declaration of the Lord within his own system.

Of course, this is not the only passage that undermines sola fide. When Matthew and Mark report the Lord's preaching, it is this: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Mt. 4:17) and "Repent and believe the gospel" (Mk 1:15). In the first case, there is no mention of faith; in the second, it is inseparable from faith. Faith and action go together.

Just as telling is St. Peter's first sermon, following which the crowds say, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" St. Peter does not take the road of sola fide here. He does not tell them, "You do not have to do anything. Just have faith in Christ." No. He does nothing of the sort. He tells them what they must do: "Repent, and be baptized..." (Acts 2:38). Now we Catholics certainly agree that one must believe in order to be saved; mere deeds are not enough. We are not legalists. So clearly an unstated premise of what St. Peter says is that one must believe.

But the Protestant who believes in salvation by faith alone cannot deal with St. Peter's declaration on his own sola fide terms. St. Peter calls for action; the Protestant calls for faith alone. Did St. Peter get it wrong? Of course not! But that means that the call for salvation by faith alone is what is wrong, because it simply cannot be reconciled with St. Peter's call for action in order to be saved.

Justification and Supererogation

In a previous post I said that sola fide was erroneous because it does not do justice to the biblical data.

Among other things, I pointed out that in the parable of the sheep and the goats, the distinction between them was based upon their deeds - not upon faith.

Interlocutor has raised the issue of the relation of works of supererogation with regards to the matter:

I guess it would boil down to why are the 2 Great Commandments not binding commandments, or how could one possibly meet them in a "minimally required" sense so as to exceed their demand?

Aside from other remarks in that same thread, I would add the following:

In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus calls the sheep into glory based upon their deeds. He doesn't say that they failed to fulfill the second great commandment; he basically says that in fact they did fulfill it. This seems to me to contradict what Interlocutor suggests above ("how could one possibly meet them in a 'minimally required' sense"), as well as what he says later:

Why would it be crazy [to require more of us than we could do, even with God's help] if it was intended to show how much higher and holy His perfect ways and standards are, to drive us to continual repentance?

But Jesus effectively says that the sheep did fulfill the second great command, like I just pointed out. So it's plain to me that what Interlocutor suggests here is mistaken, and what the Church teaches is correct:

But no one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one ought to make use of that rash saying, one prohibited by the Fathers under an anathema,-that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified. For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou are able, and to pray for what thou art not able (to do), and aids thee that thou mayest be able; whose commandments are not heavy; whose yoke is sweet and whose burthen light.

[Council of Trent, Sixth Session (Decree on Justification), Chapter XI]

With respect to works of supererogation, I referred Interlocutor to (among other things) the story of the Widow's Mite (Mark 12:41-44):

And Jesus sitting over against the treasury, beheld how the people cast money into the treasury. And many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow: and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing. And calling his disciples together, he saith to them: Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all they who have cast into the treasury. For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want cast in all she had, even her whole living.

No one would say that this widow was in any way obliged to give "all she had, even her whole living" - but she did, and Jesus praised her for it. This is a work of supererogation. So we see that it is in fact possible to do more than God requires of us.

This of course does not mean that we have done something exclusive of God's grace by which we could hope to be saved. As Trent (see the entire page previously linked) makes clear, we are saved by grace. St. Augustine sums it up well:

what else but His gifts does God crown when He crowns our merits?

Nothing whatsoever.

More on sola fide

These thoughts on sola fide have been inspired by praying the Our Father as part of the Rosary. A couple other thoughts are worth adding.

This is not an either/or question - faith or works. No. Protestants fabricate a false dilemma when they frame things this way. We must have both. This is a good example, as an aside, of the problems with sola scriptura as well. Because Protestants have made sola fide into a grid by which they interpret the Bible. Obvious questions: "How do we know that this grid is valid? Why should we accept that this grid is the only acceptable one?" But sola scriptura cannot answer these questions. Why may we not say that we must lead holy lives and have faith (as the Catholic Church teaches)? Well, we certainly can - because both are certainly present in the Bible.

"Sola Fide" - an unbiblical concept

Why do I say that the Protestant doctrine of sola fide is unbiblical? Because it simply cannot make sense of the biblical data, for one thing.

Example #1: The Our Father. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." The Lord Jesus makes clear here that our forgiveness is contingent upon whether we forgive others. But sola fide cannot properly explain this. If we are saved by faith alone, then our forgiveness is not dependent upon whether we forgive anyone anything. But this directly contradicts the prayer that Jesus taught us.

Example #2: The unmerciful servant (Mt. 18:21-35). "So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if you do not each forgive your brothers from your hearts." Note that the parable is told in response to a question asked by St. Peter: "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?" Jesus tells the parable to the apostles. They and we must forgive others if we hope to be forgiven by God for our sins. Once again, sola fide cannot make sense of this. Once again we see that the Lord Jesus makes salvation not contingent upon faith alone, but also upon what we do. Our deeds matter, and we can lose our salvation by our sins.

Example #3: The sheep and the goats (Mt. 25:31-46). The difference between the sheep and the goats was not to be found in whether the one had faith and the other didn't, but rather in their deeds.

Now it seems to me that there is a related error - one that is not necessarily held by all Protestants. That is the so-called "perseverance of the saints," by which they mean (roughly speaking) that God's elect cannot and will not lose their salvation. So the Protestant might object to the examples given above that those who stumble on the issues raised in them are not actually the elect, whose salvation is certain.

One issue with that is that example #2 is directed explictly to Peter, and implicitly to all the apostles. There is no hint in the text of the parable that Jesus is speaking per impossible when he tells Peter that unless he forgives his brother, he cannot be forgiven himself.

Another issue with this is to be found in Hebrews 6:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, who have both tasted the heavenly gift and become partakers of the Holy Spirit, who have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, and then have fallen away, to be renewed again to repentance; since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and make him a mockery."

Who but "the elect" are actually enlightened? And who but the elect have tasted the heavenly gift? And who but the elect have become partakers of the Holy Spirit? It's ridiculous even to suggest that such descriptions may be applied to men to whom they never really applied at all.

More could be said. But the point is that Christians may lose their salvation by what they do. So we must pray for grace to persevere, and then we must do it. Holiness isn't something that happens to us. It is something that we must pursue. It is something that we must strive after.