# Sola Fide Without Sola Gratia?



## Arch2k (May 9, 2006)

Can one believe that people are saved by faith alone (rightly understood) while denying that we are saved by grace alone? Vice versa?


----------



## satz (May 9, 2006)

I would think its more important to understand grace alone first, than move on to faith alone.


----------



## Arch2k (May 9, 2006)

Do they depend on each other to be understood rightly though?


----------



## satz (May 9, 2006)

I'am not really sure, but saying faith alone without grace alone seems to smack of sinner's prayer type decisional regeneration.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 9, 2006)

Josh is correct. We are saved BY grace THROUGH faith. Grace is the basis by which we are saved and faith is the channel through which the elements of salvation travel. As I have said before, faith is the vital connectiveness, the link, the union with Jesus Christ. Through faith we are saved, justified, sanctified, etc.

Another way of looking at is is faith is a gift of grace. Grace is never a product of faith as the RCC would have you believe.

[Edited on 5-9-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## Herald (May 9, 2006)

> Can one believe that people are saved by faith alone (rightly understood) while denying that we are saved by grace alone? Vice versa?



I don't believe it is theologically possible. In Ephesians 2:8 we read:



> Ephesians 2:8 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;



What is the primary antecedent of "the gift of God"? The text indicates it is grace. But in context grace cannot be separated from faith. Grace bequeaths faith which, in turn results in salvation. While salvation is monergestic, grace and faith work in a synergestic fashion.


----------



## Herald (May 9, 2006)

I could have avoided my entire post by just saying, "Ditto, Bob!" 

Sorry 'bout that Bob. I was typing while you were posting.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> That being said, I don't think the two can be separated.



Definitely not! (Bellowing)


----------



## Herald (May 9, 2006)

I do appreciate the question. I can imagine someone who has been raised in a Reformed church questioning these things. Being new to Reformed theology I find myself grabbing hold of _sola gratia_ and _sola fide_ with a tight grip. We should never take these precious truths for granted.

[Edited on 5-9-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Do they depend on each other to be understood rightly though?




Absolutely. They are logically inter-related and inter-dependent. What is "faith," if not a grace (gift) of God? Eph 2:8-10.

That was part of the Arminian crisis, that they subtly revised the definition of faith to make it a virtue again and part of the ground of justification.

This is why the FV revision of faith is so dangerous.

rsc


----------



## Herald (May 9, 2006)

Scott, and we don't talk about these things enough! We must be ever vigilent against teachings that would weaken the gospel. To edit an oft used quote, "Those who fail to learn from false teaching are doomed to repeat them." I never fail to give thanks for the repeated teaching of these essential truths.



[Edited on 5-9-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Arch2k (May 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Exactly what I was thinking when I asked the question.

R.C. Sproul claims that Arminians affirm _sola fide_ but deny _sola gratia_. But is this possible? Can one affirm one with the expense of the other? Or is sola fide redefined by the synergists and repackaged as biblical sola fide?

Here is a quote from J.I. Packer's intro to the Bondage of the Will:



> Justification by faith only is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide [by faith alone] is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia [by grace alone]; . . for to rely on one´s self for faith is not different in principle from relying on one´s self for works" (59, emphasis added)


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 9, 2006)

Interestingly, I just departed the Reformation Superhighway because of this very issue. (Perhaps the thought for this thread comes from the topic over there.)

It seems many over there - including the site owner - want to argue that sola fide is a concept that doesn't have to be believed and yet is still efficacious. Thus: a Romanist is still saved by the truth of the fact that it is "faith alone" that saves despite the fact that in the cognition of the individual person, that person is placing some faith in Christ and some faith in their works to make them acceptable to God. This is unacceptable.


----------



## Arch2k (May 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Sproul, I'm sure, means they deny the PROPER doctrine of sola gratia, but do not deny grace altogether.



Right. But that is my point. If their theology in essence is a denial of sola gratia, but yet they profess sola fide, which is it? If one is necessarily tied to the other, which one is true?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 9, 2006)

Romans 4:16 "For this reason, _it is_ *by faith*, in order that _it may be_ in accordance with *grace*, so that the *promise* {grace again} will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law {natural seed}, but also to those who are of the *faith* {spiritual sons} of Abraham, who is the father of us all."


----------



## Arch2k (May 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



They do not deny _their understanding_ of grace alone, but do they deny the biblical doctrine of grace alone (by making faith meritorious)?


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 9, 2006)

As I recently found out, I think it is helpful to ask: what do we mean by saying "faith alone" or "grace alone?"


----------



## Calvibaptist (May 9, 2006)

I would suggest that the Reformers are misunderstood by most of the modern church. The modern evangelicals claim that they believe in sola gratia while denying that faith is the gift of God. Faith alone is found originally in the sinner, not given by the Savior. Practically, that makes them semi-Pelagians without them knowing it.

By faith alone, the Reformers meant that justification is solely on the basis of faith, not any work of man. This did not mean that they were antinomians, for they believed in faith alone, but never a faith that was alone. Faith necessarily produced works, but those works were not the grounds of justification (a la Rome). They also clearly defined faith to be much more than demonic faith (assensus) but also containing an aspect of the volition and an aspect of trust.

By grace alone, the Reformers meant that the faith that justifies is wholely a gift of God. This was their claim of monergism. Salvation (all of it) is completely a work of God's grace. This is what the modern evangelical has no idea about, even though they think they do. This was a statement that just infuriated the Roman church because it denied a majority of their theology and practice. It is also very important to hold to.


----------



## Arch2k (May 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> By grace alone, the Reformers meant that the faith that justifies is wholely a gift of God. This was their claim of monergism. Salvation (all of it) is completely a work of God's grace. This is what the modern evangelical has no idea about, even though they think they do. This was a statement that just infuriated the Roman church because it denied a majority of their theology and practice. It is also very important to hold to.



Exactly. If this is the case, Arminians redefine "grace alone" to mean something different. They in essence deny the above.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> ...



Arminians will try to divorce the two. Grace alone refers to the need for empowerment which all men are given. Faith alone refers to the exercise of man's volition to believe and then be justified. Plus, a consistent Arminian would define faith more like faithfulness. If you stop believing, you lose salvation.


----------



## DTK (May 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> 
> By faith alone, the Reformers meant that justification is solely on the basis of faith, not any work of man. This did not mean that they were antinomians, for they believed in faith alone, but never a faith that was alone. Faith necessarily produced works, but those works were not the grounds of justification (a la Rome). They also clearly defined faith to be much more than demonic faith (assensus) but also containing an aspect of the volition and an aspect of trust.


I don't want to believe you mean this, i.e., from the perspective of the way you stated this. In today's world, theological precision is necessary.

Faith alone is not the *basis* of our justification according to the Reformers. One must distinguish here between the *basis* (i.e., the grounds or foundation) of our justification and the *means* whereby we appropriate to ourselves God's act of justification in Jesus Christ.

Faith is the sole *means* whereby we appropriate to ourselves the the person of Jesus Christ, and God's justification of sinners in him.

But it is the person and work of Jesus Christ that is the sole *basis* of our justification. If we as pastors are not precise on this issue, we need not expect our people to be precise.

DTK


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 10, 2006)

I agree with DTK.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> I agree with DTK.



And that makes us the three musketeers!

Since I choose first, I get to be Aramis.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> ...




Since I'm fourth, and not a musketeer yet (i.e. pastor) can I be Dartanian?


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 10, 2006)

Jeff,

This will help.

It is through grace alone by faith alone. But many have lost the reformation force of this, even "reformed" of today and say it meaning through faith alone by grace alone. Thinking, not as armininians do (faith itself) but even from some "sovereign" grace directions the subtleness of the error is this: that the faith IS the grace. This is where the "substance" idea of grace typically comes from. Yet the grace is NOT the faith, the grace is Christ Himself, He is the gift GIVEN. Such given faith, the receptacle receives. The Gift, creates, its receptical.

Ldh


----------

