Riddle me this: How can one reconcile "Sola Fide" with Matthew 7:21-23? According to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, based upon certain passages in the writings of St. Paul, you only have to confess the name of Jesus to be saved. According to these people, "works" have no merit.
Yet, Jesus Himself says, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, 10 but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven."
I'd like to see an Evangelical give an adequate response to this verse. And that response should not involve
a) trying to dismiss Jesus' teachings as metaphorical or something
b) just insisting that the passage from St. Paul trumps this passage, since that would be to place St. Paul in a higher importance than Jesus.
Re: Riddle me this: How can one reconcile "Sola Fide" with Matthew 7:21-23? I'll give it a shot.
Works are simply evidence of true salvation.
:zel
--- I know who saved my soul and I want this world to know, that I was once blind, once lost, Now I'm blood bought, reconciled to God by the blood He shed on the cross. -Eternal M.o.G.
Re: Riddle me this: How can one reconcile "Sola Fide" with Matthew 7:21-23? I was buying into that thinking for a long time. And now I still think one body many members in Christ...
doing a search on faith works and dead
interesting word choice from NAB...
Jam 2:17-20 NAB-A
(17) So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
(18) Indeed someone might say, You have faith and I have works. Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
(19) You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
(20) Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
Jam 2:26 NAB-A
(26) For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
or from NASB
Jam 2:17-19 NASB
(17) Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
(18) But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
(19) You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
Jam 2:26 NASB
(26) For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
--- ...Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.
Amen
Re: Riddle me this: How can one reconcile "Sola Fide" with Matthew 7:21-23? Let me be more specific. Protestants, in my view, put a certain emphasis on Paul's writings, such that, in matters where different New Testament passages superficially contradict each other, Paul trumps them all.
In my reading of things, anything that Paul, or James, or John, or Peter, or anyone else says should be interpreted with reference to Jesus. And the presumption of literal interpretation should fall on Gospel passages.
So here we have Jesus specifically saying that confessing His name alone is insufficient, in direct contrast to the Evangelical doctrine that all one needs to do is confess the name of Jesus.
Yet, whenever I've brought this passage up to an Evangelical, the person only replies by repeating some verse from St. Paul, as if that somehow trumps what Jesus said.
Re: Riddle me this: How can one reconcile "Sola Fide" with Matthew 7:21-23? Nah, the Bible doesn't contradict itself. Believe it or not, there are unsaved, Evangelicals that have corrupted the Word. Here's how I see it:
Our behavior is our beliefs put into action. If we don't act on what we consider to be our beliefs, can we honestly state that we believe them?
I mean, if I say, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, and that everyone else is going to burn in hell for eternity" and "God doesn't want anyone to end up in hell" then I have to do something about that, don't I? If I truly believe that?
Charles Spurgeon said, "Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you're not saved yourself, be sure of that!"
We don't work to earn our way into heaven. If we did, then Jesus died in vain. We work because we love Him and want to obey His commands, we want to do His will, we do it out of gratitude for the undeserved gift of salvation. None of us are worthy of the Gift, all our works are filthy rags before the Lord.
--- I know who saved my soul and I want this world to know, that I was once blind, once lost, Now I'm blood bought, reconciled to God by the blood He shed on the cross. -Eternal M.o.G.
Re: Riddle me this: How can one reconcile "Sola Fide" with Matthew 7:21-23?
quote:
NOT BY FAITH ALONE
Protestants are known their slogan that we are justified by "faith alone," but the expression "faith alone" only appears once in the Bible—in James 2:24—where it is rejected. This is a burr under the saddle for Protestants, for, if they wanted to use terms the way the Bible does, they would have to give up their chief slogan.
When Catholics point this out, many Protestants attempt damage control by attacking the faith being discussed in James 2, saying it is an inferior or bad faith. Some do this by pejoratively labeling it "dead faith." They treat "faith without works is dead" (vv. 17, 26) as if it were a definition and say, "If faith does not produce works then it is dead faith. It is this dead faith that James says won’t save us."
But reading the context shows that James is not using the phrase as a definition. He is not defining the term "dead faith." That term does not appear in the text. He is stating a fact, not offering a definition.
The interpretation flies apart at the seams when we test it by substituting "dead faith" wherever the text mentions faith.
On that reading, people would be boasting of having dead faith (v. 14). James would be making the redundant statement that dead faith without works is dead (vv. 17, 26) and offering to prove that dead faith is barren (v. 20). He would be offering to show his dead faith by his works (v. 18) and commending people ("you do well") for having dead faith (v. 19). He would be telling us that Abraham’s dead faith was active with his works (v. 22) and that Abraham believed God with dead faith and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (v. 23).
Another attempt to impugn "faith" in this passage uses the statement "Even the demons believe—and shudder" (v. 19). People ask, "What kind of faith do demons have? Only mere intellectual assent. They intellectually assent to the truths of theology, but this is as far as their faith goes." This understanding of the faith in James 2 is closer to the truth, but it still creates problems—in fact, many of the same problems.
People would be boasting of having mere intellectual assent (v. 14). James would be offering to show others his mere intellectual assent by his works (v. 18). He would be commending people for having mere intellectual assent (v. 19) and saying that Abraham’s mere intellectual assent was active along with his works (v. 22). He would be saying that Abraham’s mere intellectual assent was reckoned to him as righteousness, contradicting verse 23, which would state that mere intellectual assent is barren.
The "mere intellectual assent" solution fails just as the "dead faith" one does. In fact, any solution that impugns the faith James is talking about as a bad or inferior faith will fail. This can be seen by going through the passage and substituting "bad faith" and "inferior faith" wherever "faith" is mentioned. Such solutions fail because James does not see anything wrong with the faith he is talking about. The faith isn’t the problem; the fact it is alone is the problem.
To understand what kind of faith James has in mind, one must avoid the temptation to read something bad into it. This is where the "mere intellectual assent" solution went wrong. Its advocates correctly identified verse 19 as the key to understanding the faith being discussed, which is intellectual assent. The problems were created by adding the term "mere" to make it sound bad. Leave "mere" off, and the problems vanish. Someone can go around boasting that he intellectually assents to God’s truth (v. 14), prompting James’s need to show that intellectual assent without works is dead and barren (vv. 17, 20, 26). He could offer to show his intellectual assent by his works (v. 18). And he could commend a person for having intellectual assent (v. 19a), while saying that even the demons have it though it doesn’t stop them from shuddering at the prospect of God’s wrath (v. 19b).
Finally, he can speak of how Abraham’s intellectual assent was active with and completed by his works (v. 22) and can conclude that man is not justified by intellectual assent alone (v. 24). James views intellectual assent as good thing ("you do well," v. 19a), but not as a thing that will save us by itself (vv. 14, 17, 20, 24, 26).
Re: Riddle me this: How can one reconcile "Sola Fide" with Matthew 7:21-23? Order,
I'm not saying the Bible contradicts itself--note that I used the word "apparently." Certain passages *seem* to contradict others unless we see them in their context.
My rule for Bible reading is this: NT letters were written to specific audiences to address specific problems, and should be understood in the context of the problems they were meant to address.
Jesus' teachings are meant for everyone in all situations, and since Jesus is God, the words of the Gospels are more literally the Word(s) of God than anything in the Epistles.
Protestants over-emphasize St. Paul.
But you hit on something key, that I t hink is lost in this debate, and is key to my own work in theology:
It's really about love.
Neitehr faith nor works are as important as love. Both are manifestations of love.
Re: Riddle me this: How can one reconcile "Sola Fide" with Matthew 7:21-23? The love walk, exactly. Hey, we need to finish talking about what we were talking about yesterday, I took notes!!!
well, not exactly like that but... hehehe
--- ...Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.
Amen
Re: Riddle me this: How can one reconcile "Sola Fide" with Matthew 7:21-23? The Bible does not contradict, I think we all agree with that. So, just as you state that we cannot give Paul's epistles more weight than what Jesus said, neither can we ignore one passage and look to another to back our claim. All Scripture is good for teaching. These passages must work together, not against one another. They compliment each other, giving more Truth, more insight, more detail.
Bottom line, although works are very important, it is not what saves us. But we act on our beliefs, so if we truly believe something, it will be evidenced in our actions.
James sums it up nicely in this passage:
James 2:15-17
Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
This shows us what seperates the hypocrites, the false converts and the deceivers from the true believers. Abraham had faith, and he acted on it. Rahab had faith, and she acted on it.
Your true, saving faith will produce works, but you do not earn your way be the works that you do. Your works are as filthy rags before the Lord, nothing but a feeble attempt at doing right. That's not what saves. But those pathetic works are evidence of our salvation.
:zel
--- I know who saved my soul and I want this world to know, that I was once blind, once lost, Now I'm blood bought, reconciled to God by the blood He shed on the cross. -Eternal M.o.G.
Re: Riddle me this: How can one reconcile "Sola Fide" with Matthew 7:21-23? That brings me, at least, back to whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me. So in my stupidity last year of bashing, I was bashing Jesus. Not nice to realize. The more I look at things the more difficult it is to imagine that Christianity was dormant until Martin Luther. I think it's time we stop picking each other apart knowing that the world can see it, and start acting like we really do walk in that Christian love.
--- ...Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.
Amen
