# I am seeking opinions on what I have written



## dudley (Apr 21, 2010)

I have been asked to write out and give a brief explanation of “the doctrine of sola fide” to share this Sunday after the 11 AM service with a young man who has attended services with us on several occasions with his girlfriend who is a Presbyterian.

He was invited to join our inquirers class but said he is not planning to become a Presbyterian. However he wishes to know about what we believe as Reformed Protestants and Presbyterians at the request of his girlfriend. He and his family are Roman Catholics . He is only 19 and is willing to listen and learn about us as Presbyterians and what we believe because his girlfriend has requested it.

The pastor suggested having a coffee and Danish brunch after the service with some of the younger people in the congregation and a few of the adults to just sit and talk. He asked 5 of us to each take one of the solas of the Protestant Reformation and write a brief piece explaining what we believe as Protestants and Presbyterians. I was asked to prepare a brief piece on Sola Fide. I am placing what I have written and wish to share on Sunday and would appreciate any advice or suggestions any of my PB brothers may have in either making changes to the way I have written it or any other suggestions or if you think it is written well than I will leave it as is.

Sola Fide is Latin,and means “faith alone”

The historic Protestant doctrine Sola Fide is very important to those of us who are Protestants.It states that the only instrumental cause of justification, from the human perspective, is faith. 

While God is the ultimate cause of justification, wewho are Protestants believe that faith in Christ through the message of the Gospel is necessary. There are no works, no matter how meritorious they may seem, that can add to justification (Eph. 2:8-9). 

This doctrine, according to Protestants, finds its roots in the teachings of Paul but was obscured by the corruptions of the Roman catholic teachings up to the middle ages.It was restored during the Reformation. As a Protestant who like you was at one time a roman catholic I want to point out that it is not the doctrine itself that saves, but the reality that the doctrine represents. In other words, one is saved by faith alone, not by belief in the doctrine of faith alone. As well, most Protestants would say, “it is faith alone that saves, but the faith that saves will not be alone.” This doctrine represents a major point of distinction between Protestants and Roman Catholics



Thank you all …I am looking forward for any advice.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 21, 2010)

Dudley,

It doesn't really say or explain much. I would explain that it is the Person and work of Christ that is the source of our justification and that our faith, alone, is that which lays hold of Him. Christ secured perfect salvation for His people both in a perfect sacrifice that takes away the guilt and wrath of Sin and also lived wholly obediently to God the Father. He died for our transgressions and took away our sin and was raised from the dead because death could not hold Him. God does not look on our faith and see us as righteous because of the quality of our faith. Rather, faith is born in us from God as we look to Christ and His Person. When we believe in Him we are united to Him in His death and resurrection. With Him, our sins are nailed to the Cross and, also with Him, we are raised to newness of life and sin and death no longer have dominion over us.

Faith alone, then, is distinguished from any idea that we can contribute to Christ's death and resurrection by works that add to our relative righteousness before God. Rather, the Scriptures testify that when we identify with Christ in faith, we participate fully in Him and our sins are judged already and His righteousness is credited to us such that we can stand before a Holy God and be redeemed to be His people.


----------



## dudley (Apr 21, 2010)

*Thank You Rich*

Rich, thank you and I am going to expand my explanation with what you have written. I will post my completed piece by Saturday for all to view. Hopefully some others too will make recomendations.


Semper Fidelis said:


> Dudley,
> 
> It doesn't really say or explain much. I would explain that it is the Person and work of Christ that is the source of our justification and that our faith, alone, is that which lays hold of Him. Christ secured perfect salvation for His people both in a perfect sacrifice that takes away the guilt and wrath of Sin and also lived wholly obediently to God the Father. He died for our transgressions and took away our sin and was raised from the dead because death could not hold Him. God does not look on our faith and see us as righteous because of the quality of our faith. Rather, faith is born in us from God as we look to Christ and His Person. When we believe in Him we are united to Him in His death and resurrection. With Him, our sins are nailed to the Cross and, also with Him, we are raised to newness of life and sin and death no longer have dominion over us.
> 
> Faith alone, then, is distinguished from any idea that we can contribute to Christ's death and resurrection by works that add to our relative righteousness before God. Rather, the Scriptures testify that when we identify with Christ in faith, we participate fully in Him and our sins are judged already and His righteousness is credited to us such that we can stand before a Holy God and be redeemed to be His people.


----------



## cih1355 (Apr 22, 2010)

The doctrine of Sola Fide assumes a certain view of man's nature. Man is totally depraved. There is no inherent goodness in man that would cause or compel God to save people. We have no righteousness of our own. We cannot save ourselves. We cannot contribute anything to our justification. We deserve to be condemned in hell forever.

I would explain the meaning of the terms "faith" and "justification." Faith means to rely or depend upon someone or something. To justify means to declare righteous. As soon as a person depends upon Christ alone for his salvation, God imputes Christ's righteousness to that person and declares him righteous. We have no righteousness of our own. We have Christ's righteousness credited to our account. 

Faith is the sole means by which justification is received. Justification is not received by doing good deeds, by being a good person, or by living out a changed life. God can change your life, but your changed life is not the basis upon which you are justified.


----------



## Andres (Apr 22, 2010)

you've started out well, but add what, or better yet, who ,our faith is in. Maybe explain why we cannot be saved by anything other than faith in Christ Jesus. Since you are in the unique position of being an ex-RC, you may even draw some on how your understanding of sola fide changed your view of salvation and ultimately caused you to leave the RC.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 22, 2010)

I can't really add anything to that has not already been added above, but I will pray for you and you endeavor dudley. You are easly compentant enough to do a good job at this and ultimatly it is God who is control so no worries right. Good luck and let us know how it goes.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 22, 2010)

Is it possible your personal history with the RC church may cause you to focus more than necessary on how "faith alone" is a point of difference with Catholics? I would urge you to define it in terms of our relationship with Christ, not our differences with Catholics. If Christ and the gospel of grace are held up, the young man will be able to see the difference without having to be confronted with it directly.

You might also simplify, for people unaccustomed to reading theology. Is there a simpler way to say "instrumental cause" or "meritorious," etc.?

I thought Rich's explanation was excellent and got to the heart of the mater.


----------



## DTK (Apr 22, 2010)

dudley said:


> He was invited to join our inquirers class but said he is not planning to become a Presbyterian. However he wishes to know about what we believe as Reformed Protestants and Presbyterians at the request of his girlfriend. He and his family are Roman Catholics . He is only 19 and is willing to listen and learn about us as Presbyterians and what we believe because his girlfriend has requested it.



I think he ought to take the inquirers class. Why not emphasize that participation in the inquirers class does not require membership? I don't think the brief time after a worship service to explain each "sola" is going to serve this young man well. In fact, it could very well hardened himself in his position as a Romanist, and give him a false sense of justification in walking away and thinking, "OK, I've heard it all."

Like many other things in our culture today, people want "push button" theology, i.e., instant understanding, and from a pastoral perspective, I don't see how the best interests of this young man can be well served by such a venue.


----------



## dudley (Apr 23, 2010)

DTK said:


> dudley said:
> 
> 
> > He was invited to join our inquirers class but said he is not planning to become a Presbyterian. However he wishes to know about what we believe as Reformed Protestants and Presbyterians at the request of his girlfriend. He and his family are Roman Catholics . He is only 19 and is willing to listen and learn about us as Presbyterians and what we believe because his girlfriend has requested it.
> ...




I thank all of you for your input. I am going to use all your suggestions for my part of the dialogue on Sunday with the young Roman catholic man. I experienced a personal conversion to Christ when I became a Presbyterian and believing we are saved and justified by faith in Him alone. I now center my Christian experience on the Gospel and scripture and less on sacrament or ordinance. 

The elder who runs the inquirers class suggested this format because the young fellow was uncomfortable about attending an inquirers class. His family are practicing Roman Catholics.

Its going to be an inquirers class with Danish and coffee. I was asked to talk about this one topic only because I am an ex Roman catholic who the elder knows as I have told many that 
I can say I experienced a “True Protestant Conversion” as John Calvin also described.

He thought hearing this little bit from me would perhaps open his mind to listening more intently and maybe be an instrument in converting him to the Reformed faith.

I am and want to be purely most Protestant in my expression of the Christian faith. It is my belief that Reformed Protestantism and Protestant Evangelicalism is the true Church and teaches the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

I hope to bring that message to the young man.

Pastor David from your biography page : Augustine (354-430): Therefore what He [i.e., Christ] has deigned to speak to us, we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked, gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate XXII, Â§1. 

I also thank you for guidance in this.


----------



## Herald (Apr 24, 2010)

DTK said:


> dudley said:
> 
> 
> > He was invited to join our inquirers class but said he is not planning to become a Presbyterian. However he wishes to know about what we believe as Reformed Protestants and Presbyterians at the request of his girlfriend. He and his family are Roman Catholics . He is only 19 and is willing to listen and learn about us as Presbyterians and what we believe because his girlfriend has requested it.
> ...



David,

Well said. There's a local coffee house in Gambrills (near Annapolis) that I frequent quite often. I've engaged more than a few fellow patrons in conversation. "Push button" theology is exactly what they want. This coffee house is popular with the emergent types. They're the worst offenders. They want their theology just like their lattes; served quick and made to order. Unless it is the work of the Holy Spirit, they tune out fast once they are exposed to the full counsel of God. But just because they want instant gratification doesn't mean we are to acquiesce.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 24, 2010)

Chapter 3, "Committed to Faith Alone" from
"What is Reformed Theology?" by Dr RC Sproul.

You can also view the video portion, still, free on-line (2 videos on this topic):
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/faith-alone-part-1/


----------



## dudley (Apr 24, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Chapter 3, "Committed to Faith Alone" from
> "What is Reformed Theology?" by Dr RC Sproul.
> 
> You can also view the video portion, still, free on-line (2 videos on this topic):
> What Is Reformed Theology? Teaching Series by Dr. R.C. Sproul | Watch and Listen to Reformed Theology Teaching Series at Ligonier.org


 
Scott, Very good recomendations, I thank you and I am using your references above. As I said we will really be having an inquirers class just that we are not using the term in order to help the young man feel comfortable. It took a while before he was comfortable in joining us for services on Sunday morning. Now he has been coming to services with his girlfriend every Sunday for the last 4 weeks and paricipates in the service in song and prayer. Sometimes the human spirit needs to feel accomodated in order to be receptive to the Holy Spirit and Gods grace.He is not looking for "instant understanding". We believe that the Holy Spirit is at work and gradually we are seeing this young man open up to participating in trying to understand what it is to be a Protestant and what we believe as Reformed Protestants and as Presbyterians. John Calvins conversion was not an instant change of heart nor was mine it was a gradual awaking to the truth. I think the same thing is now happening to this young man. Hopefully on Sunday the Holy Spirit will take command and guide us in helping to lead this young man also to the truth. 
Please pray that this young man receives the grace of God and His Spirit and begin a conversion to the Reformed faith and eventually join us as a member of the Presbyterian church.


----------



## dudley (Apr 24, 2010)

Scott, Lecture 4 "Faith Alone" from the lecture series you recommended is excellent, R.C. Sproul is a wonderful teacher writer and theologian. I have and have read R.C. Sproul's teaching series on Roman Catholicism which is also excellent. His writings and lectures have helped me to become a more knowledgeable and staunch Reformed Protestant and Presbyterian. In his series on Roman Catholicism he is superb at pointing to the numerous conflicts between Scripture and Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. He helped convince me of the fallacies of the roman catholic church and her theology along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I have his book but I will wait for the right time to share it with the young man we are introducing to Protestantism tomorrow. If he continues in an inquirers class as we hope than later on I will share it with him.


----------



## dudley (Apr 25, 2010)

I have just returned from church services and the informal ( inquirerers session with coffee and danish) after the service with the young man I have spoken about in this post and his girlfriend. *I can report to all I believe the grace of God and His Spirit is definitely at work.* The dialogue went beautifully and the session concluded with the young man admitting (confessing) that a true believers faith in Christ and based on what we are taught in scripture and the Gospels is the primary source of salvation for all who place their faith in Him alone. He also has now signed up to attend a formal inquirers class beginning this week with the pastor and two of the elders. He also is planning to return to attend services with us next week. Next week we also have our monthly celebration of the Lords Supper. It will now be the second time he will witness how we as Reformed Protestants and Presbyterians celebrate our fellowship of Communion at the Lords Table.


----------



## dudley (Apr 29, 2010)

I said I would give an update on this post.....We had the first formal inquirers class this evening for Patrick, the young rc man I spoke about last week on this post. 

He was given the Westmister Confession of faith study edition with biblical quotes to take home to read. We also gave him the Westminster Shorter catechism. 

Sunday is our monthly celebration of the Lords Supper so the elder decided to concentrate on the sacraments and centered on our beliefs on the Lords Supper.

We discussed q 91 - 97 thoroughly.

Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, And the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

Q. 92. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ;wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.

Q. 93. Which are the sacraments of the New Testament?
A. The sacraments of the New Testament are, baptism,And the Lord's Supper.

Q. 94. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's.

Q. 95. To whom is Baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him;but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.

Q. 96. What is the Lord's Supper?
A. The Lord's Supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread And wine, according to Christ's appointment, his death is showed forth;And the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.

Q. 97. What is required for the worthy receiving of the Lord's Supper?
A. It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body, of their faith to feed upon him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience; lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves.

We also centered and read through and exp[alined CHAPTER XXIX.Of the Lord's Supper.from the WCF

He was particularly interested in sections 1,2,4,5,and 6 and had many questions. The one thing he was never aware of is that the rc doctrine of transubstantiation was declaed dogma by the rcc at the council of Trent. A reaction to the reformation. I think his eyes were opened and he began to see and understand our position as Presbyterians on the Lords Supper.

I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in his Church unto the end of the world; for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death, the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.

II. In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone; as likewise the denial of the cup to the people; worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.

V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly, and only, bread and wine, as they were before.

VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common-sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.

We also discuseed 8 verses in John 6 have to do with eating Jesus' flesh and/or drinking his blood. 

And it's not at all clear that in these verses Jesus is talking about actually eating his flesh or actually drinking his blood. In fact, when they say this is a hard statement, Jesus doesn't respond as if his talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood is what offended them. Rather, he responds as if his claim to have come down from heaven is the "hard saying" they're grumbling about (6:62). Then he goes on to say that it's his words that are spirit and life, not his flesh and blood, and Peter says that they will continue to follow him because Jesus has words of eternal life, not because he is going to give them his flesh and blood to eat and drink.

Also, per John 6:57, does Jesus similarly actually eat his Father's flesh and actually drink his Father's blood? Jesus earlier said that his nourishment was to do his Father's will and accomplish his Father's work (ergon) (John 4:34), not to eat his Father's flesh or drink his Father's blood. And when the ones who followed Jesus asked him what they should do to do God's work (ergon), Jesus replied that God's work (ergon) was that they believe in him whom God had sent - i.e., believe in Jesus (John 6:29).

I think he now has some serious questions going on in his mind.He is joining us for services this Sunday and will witness for the second time how we observe the Lords Supper.


We said we do believe that the Lords Supper is a sacred rite because Christ the High Priest has instituted it.

Secondly, Communion bears witness to something already accomplished.

Third, the action takes the place of the thing it signifies.

The Lord’s Supper is valuable because of what it signifies (communion with Christ for strength and communion with others for unity).

Sixth, observance of the Lord’s Supper increases and supports faith, and finally, its power is its keeping of an oath of allegiance.

We ended tonites class with the following quote:

"There are but two religions in the world," we hear Olivetan saying. "The one class of religions are those which men have invented, in all of which man saves himself by ceremonies and good works; the other is that one religion which is revealed in the Bible, and which teaches man to look for salvation solely from the free grace of God." "I will have none of your new doctrines," Calvin sharply rejoins; "think you that I have lived in error all my days?" But Calvin is not so sure of the matter as he looks. The words of his cousin have gone deeper into his heart than he is willing to admit even to himself; and when Olivetan has taken farewell for the day, scarce has the door been closed behind him when Calvin, bursting into tears, falls upon his knees, and gives vent in prayer to the doubts and anxieties that agitate him.

Source: The History of Protestantism, by J.A. Wylie


----------



## dudley (May 1, 2010)

I received an e mail from Patrick’s girlfriend about 15 minutes ago. She reported the following to me. She said Patrick said in a discussion with her and her dad tonight who is a staunch Presbyterian Protestant that it is possible that the roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation might be incorrect. He said how Christ becomes present is really a mystery and the Reformed Protestant position might be a better way to explain the Lords Supper. He said to her dad that he could accept the bread as a symbol representing a spiritual and heavenly bread, and the wine as a spiritual drink representing his shedding his blood. He said the visible bread he would and could now see as a sacrament of His body, and wine as a sacrament of His blood, symbolizing His sacrifice on Calvary but he said he still believes that Christ becomes present to us in the sacrament which is then the true body and blood of Christ our only Savior in our souls in a spiritual way.

Patrick also said last Sunday that he agreed that placing our faith in Christ alone is the key to salvation. 

With the statement Patrick made tonight and what he said last Sunday about salvation I believe that Patrick is already a Protestant , he just is not conscientiously aware of it yet. 

My conversion was similar, I discovered in time that my Christian beliefs were no longer in line with what roman catholicism teaches but were in conformity with the teachings of the Reformed Protestant fold. I have said to many it was not that I left the roman catholic church I realized I was no longer a roman catholic , I became aware that I was in fact a Protestant.
I think Patrick may be on the same path. Please pray that the Holy Spirit guides Patrick to the truth.


----------

