Is Sola Fide Consistent With Mormonism?

[Cobalt-70]

I don't know how it is me who is missing the distinction, when I am the one who actually mentions it and brought it up.

And Wesley did not teach Sola Fide -- except that he (almost never) sometimes used the phrase.

What do you think Sola Fide is?

Fully fleshed out, Sola fide is the belief that, while good works may (or must) accompany faith, it is the faith alone, not the works, that actually causes justification. The works are the fruits of faith, not the currency with which we buy our way into heaven. Faith is the mechanism or trigger that changes us from a "carnal, sensual, and devilish" person to a person that repents, does good works, and (perhaps over a period of time, according to Wesley) becomes sanctified. Only faith can change a person's motivations and inclination toward good or evil. But essentially all Protestants recognize that if you are evil, and don't do good works, that is a sign that you don't actually have a justifying faith.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CASteinman]

Fully fleshed out, Sola fide is the belief that, while good works may (or must) accompany faith, it is the faith alone, not the works, that actually causes justification. The works are the fruits of faith, not the currency with which we buy our way into heaven. Faith is the mechanism or trigger that changes us from a "carnal, sensual, and devilish" person to a person that repents, does good works, and (perhaps over a period of time, according to Wesley) becomes sanctified. Only faith can change a person's motivations and inclination toward good or evil. But essentially all Protestants recognize that if you are evil, and don't do good works, that is a sign that you don't actually have a justifying faith.

And yet, Wesley taught something else. He taught that there were varieties of faith and that many varieties of faith would not save man. He even said, concerning some of the varieties of faith in Protestantism:

Hitherto faith has been considered chiefly as an evidence and conviction of such or such truths. And this is the sense wherein it is taken at this day in every part of the Christian world. But, in the mean time, let it be carefully observed, (for eternity depends upon it) that neither the faith of a Roman Catholic, nor that of a Protestant, if it contains no more than this, no more than the embracing such and such truths, will avail any more before God, than the faith of a Mahometan or a Heathen. Can this "faith save him?" Can it save any man either from sin or from hell? No more than it could cave Judas Iscariot: No more than it could save the devil and his angels; all of whom are convinced that every title of Holy Scripture is true.

But what is the faith which is properly saving; which brings eternal salvation to all those that keep it to the end? It is such a divine conviction of God, and the things of God, as, even in its infant state, enables every one that possesses it to "fear God and work righteousness." And whosoever, in every nation, believes thus far, the Apostle declares, is "accepted of him."

[Cobalt-70]

And yet, Wesley taught something else. He taught that there were varieties of faith and that many varieties of faith would not save man. He even said, concerning some of the varieties of faith in Protestantism:

I don't think what Wesley said was much different than what other Protestants say. The difference, if any, is a matter of emphasis, but Lutherans, and even Calvinists recognize a difference between "saving faith" and "non-saving faith."

[CASteinman]

I don't think what Wesley said was much different than what other Protestants say. The difference, if any, is a matter of emphasis, but Lutherans, and even Calvinists recognize a difference between "saving faith" and "non-saving faith."

I think its different from what some say... the same as what some say. The Protestants are a Rainbow of Doctrines.

I am fully aware that even the Calvinists must embrace contradiction and that it is not really "Faith Alone". The doctrine is quite obviously wrong and must be patched up with a variety of caveats.

It is a false doctrine and cannot be reconciled with the True Gospel which places Christ, (not Man's Faith) on the throne to decide whether a person is justified or not. We are Justified by Christ. Not by Faith. Not by our Works. Not even by Faith that is a "saving Faith". We are justified by Christ and the Holy Ghost. Who are acting with the Authority of God.

Luther, Calvin and the rest, despite all their rantings, missed this key fact.

[Anakin7]

It's all about accessing/activating and making alive True Grace [charis] by way of True Faith [pistis]. Jesus Christs Awesome Grace [One of the meanings of which is unmerited favor] is by way of True pistis [faithfulness,fidelity,loyalty,obediance,trust] to the person of Christ Jesus.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI Knight

Edited May 19, 2012 by Anakin7

[Cobalt-70]

I am fully aware that even the Calvinists must embrace contradiction and that it is not really "Faith Alone". The doctrine is quite obviously wrong and must be patched up with a variety of caveats.

It's their doctrine. They aren't patching anything. I think you just have a very idealized view of what sola fide is that does not correspond to anyone's reality.

It is a false doctrine and cannot be reconciled with the True Gospel which places Christ, (not Man's Faith) on the throne to decide whether a person is justified or not. We are Justified by Christ. Not by Faith. Not by our Works. Not even by Faith that is a "saving Faith". We are justified by Christ and the Holy Ghost. Who are acting with the Authority of God.

Luther, Calvin and the rest, despite all their rantings, missed this key fact.

Luther, Calvin, and the rest are the ones that defined sola fide, so how can you argue with them? It seems like the interpretation of sola fide that you are opposing is not a version of the doctrine that anyone actually teaches. You seem to want to veer toward tearing down a straw man version of sola fide.

Also, no Protestant group that I am aware of puts humans in the throne to determine when a person is justified. They all believe that only God justifies, and only God can determine who has been justified. In fact, the Calvinists in particular think it is about the worst thing you can possibly do in the world to look to your own merits, rather than focusing on the merits of Jesus.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CASteinman]

It's their doctrine. They aren't patching anything. I think you just have a very idealized view of what sola fide is that does not correspond to anyone's reality.

Of course they are patching it up. It doesn't make any sense to say "Faith Alone" and then notice that you have to do SOMETHING to even have Faith. They discovered their problem and patched it.

Luther, Calvin, and the rest are the ones that defined sola fide, so how can you argue with them?

Because sola fide is a false doctrine. That is how.

[Cobalt-70]

Because sola fide is a false doctrine. That is how.

If sola fide (in the strawman form as you describe it) is a false doctrine, then it's a good thing that no Protestant believes it. But when you say things like "sola fide is a false doctrine," you are likely to offend Protestants, and you are being a bit deceptive to the extent you are referring to a doctrine that no Protestant actually teaches. It's like the Evangelicals who insist Mormons teach "polytheism."

[CASteinman]

If sola fide (in the strawman form as you describe it) is a false doctrine, then it's a good thing that no Protestant believes it. But when you say things like "sola fide is a false doctrine," you are likely to offend Protestants, and you are being a bit deceptive to the extent you are referring to a doctrine that no Protestant actually teaches. It's like the Evangelicals who insist Mormons teach "polytheism."

It does not matter which version -- even the patched up versions or the revisionist versions are preached. They are all false.

[BCSpace]

Mormons assume this means that works are not important for salvation. However, that is not actually what sola fide means. Protestants believe that works are a natural consequence of faith, and that anyone who does not do good works does not actually have faith. A person cannot be saved without good works, because if they don't do good works, then they never actually had faith--but it is the faith that justifies them, not the works.

I think it can work both ways in the same individual. That works can result in faith is taught by Jesus himself in John 7:17.

Where Sola Fide goes wrong is the notion that justification is by faith alone which is the actual definition of Sola Fide. If Sola Fide were true, then the Bible wouldn't also talk about justification by works and Paul would not be saying that he is not saved yet. Thus Sola Fide is as far from Biblical LDS doctrine as one can get.

[CASteinman]

WE Are Saved By True Grace [charis] Alone through True Faith [pistis] alone.

No one is saved by Grace. We are saved by Jesus. We are not saved by a greek word nor by a concept. We are saved by Jesus who did it out of love and obedience to His Father (also for us).

I don't believe in denying Him the correct position as Savior.

Edited May 19, 2012 by CASteinman

[Anakin7]

No one is saved by Grace. We are saved by Jesus. We are not saved by a greek word nor by a concept. We are saved by Jesus who did it out of love and obedience to His Father (also for us).

I don't believe in denying Him the correct position as Savior.

So as to not let me be misunderstood in my above post I also believe we are Saved ALONE by Jesus Christ by way of His True Grace Alone and accessing it through or by way of Our True Faith Alone.Not by the definitional meaning Alone but by what the Anchient Hebrews/Israelites/Saints/Christians lived and there understanding and applying of those True definitional meanings in there lives of which we all should do as well.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI Knight

Edited May 19, 2012 by Anakin7

[CASteinman]

So as to not let me be misunderstood in my above post I also believe we are Saved ALONE by Jesus Christ by way of His True Grace Alone and accessing it through or by way of Our True Faith Alone.Not by the definitional meaning Alone but by what the Anchient Hebrews/Israelites/Saints/Christians lived and there understanding and applying of those True definitional meanings in there lives of which we all should do as well.

A wee bit wordy, but seems to be the way I see things. They called it "This Way".

[Cobalt-70]

I think it can work both ways in the same individual. That works can result in faith is taught by Jesus himself in John 7:17.

It's important to read John 7:17 in context: it says:

16

So Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me.

17

If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or

whether

I speak from Myself.

18

He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.

”

So, first of all, it says that knowledge comes to one who is willing to do God's will. In other words, it's just saying that knowledge comes from faith. Faith is, in part, the willingness to do God's will. This is a verse in which the King James Version does us a disservice, because you can come away from that version with the impression that it is actually "doing" God's will that gives you knowledge. But the Greek word is ΘΕΛΗΜΑ, which means "may be willing." It isn't doing that gives you knowledge, it is willingness to do, or in other words, faith.

Second, Jesus is using this saying to make a statement about reliance on one's own merit. One who seeks his own glory, and teaches of his own merit, cannot be trusted, only the one who seeks the glory of God.

Where Sola Fide goes wrong is the notion that justification is by faith alone which is the actual definition of Sola Fide. If Sola Fide were true, then the Bible wouldn't also talk about justification by works and Paul would not be saying that he is not saved yet. Thus Sola Fide is as far from Biblical LDS doctrine as one can get.

Do you have a specific Pauline quote in mind? Sola fide is not the same thing as Free Grace theology (i.e., that you are "saved' the moment that you confess Jesus as your personal Savior), and the idea that Paul said he was not saved is only an argument against the latter, not sola fide as understood by the majority of Christianity.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

No one is saved by Grace. We are saved by Jesus. We are not saved by a greek word nor by a concept. We are saved by Jesus who did it out of love and obedience to His Father (also for us).

I don't believe in denying Him the correct position as Savior.

I think you are setting up a straw man. No Protestant thinks that anyone is saved by a Greek word, and they all agree that they are saved by Jesus alone. But grace is the mechanism by which salvation comes to humanity. This is not really even controversial within Mormonism. Modern Mormons believe that salvation comes through grace. It's just that thanks to Bruce R. McConkie, most of us now believe that salvation comes through works also. So, part of our salvation comes from Jesus (via the mechanism of grace as a result of his atonement), and the other part comes through our own merits and hard work.

[CASteinman]

I think you are setting up a straw man. No Protestant thinks that anyone is saved by a Greek word, and they all agree that they are saved by Jesus alone. But grace is the mechanism by which salvation comes to humanity. This is not really even controversial within Mormonism. Modern Mormons believe that salvation comes through grace. It's just that thanks to Bruce R. McConkie, most of us now believe that salvation comes through works also. So, part of our salvation comes from Jesus (via the mechanism of grace as a result of his atonement), and the other part comes through our own merits and hard work.

I did not set up a strawman. I was responding to a post that said we are saved by Grace. I object to the idea that we are saved by anything but Jesus Christ.

You are incorrect about Bruce R McConkie being the origins of any such doctrine.

[Cobalt-70]

You are incorrect about Bruce R McConkie being the origins of any such doctrine.

I think I'm right that McConkie is the origin of the modern version of the "grace + works" theology, but I'm open to being proven otherwise.

There was, of course, an earlier "blood atonement" theology taught by Brigham Young, which said that the atonement of Jesus was so limited that it was sometimes necessary for a person to be killed as a human sacrifice to make up for Jesus' deficiency. McConkie's theology replaced human sacrifice with works, but even further diminished the role of the atonement. According to McConkie, it is not even primarily the atonement that saves us. Salvation comes, according to him, from "grace coupled with obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel." Grace through the atonement, therefore, is only half of what saves us. The other half is our own efforts and good works. The LDS Bible Dictionary even took this one step further and taught salvation by works alone, with the grace of Jesus and his atonement just being there to help us do the works we need to save ourselves, which is basically Pelagianism. Somewhere between "grace + works" and "works alone" pretty well reflects the state of late 20th century Mormon thought, though there has recently been a movement to return to a more Joseph Smith-era understanding of salvation alone by the atonement and grace of Jesus.

There are also some earlier statements in church publications that could mistakenly be interpreted to be similar to that taught by McConkie, but on closer examination, these authors are arguing against either sola fide, or more specifically, against Free Grace theology, rather than sola gratia. Unlike McConkie and late 20th century Mormonism, they still believed that Jesus' atonement was the sole basis of salvation. They just thought that the gift of grace through the atonement could not be given without a demonstration of works--basically a Catholic or Disciples of Christ understanding of sola gratia. That is still salvation by grace alone, and quite different from McConkie's "grace + works" or the LDS Bible Dictionary's "works alone" model.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Storm Rider]

I did not set up a strawman. I was responding to a post that said we are saved by Grace. I object to the idea that we are saved by anything but Jesus Christ.

You are incorrect about Bruce R McConkie being the origins of any such doctrine.

You are playing a game of semantics while agreeing with the same thing. It is not helpful and I like the point you are making.

[CASteinman]

You are playing a game of semantics while agreeing with the same thing. It is not helpful and I like the point you are making.

No, I am not playing a game of semantics. I am absolutely serious about what I said. I do not appreciate the depreciating remark.

[CASteinman]

I think I'm right that McConkie is the origin of the modern version of the "grace + works" theology, but I'm open to being proven otherwise.

CFR on the notion that there is a "modern version".

[CASteinman]

The LDS Bible Dictionary even took this one step further and taught salvation by works alone, with the grace of Jesus and his atonement just being there to help us do the works we need to save ourselves

This is false and could only be supported by cherry picking.

[thesometimesaint]

cobalt70:

"It's just that thanks to Bruce R. McConkie, most of us now believe that salvation comes through works also."

It is a concept right out of the Bible.

James 2:14-26

Edited May 21, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Log]

I think I'm right that McConkie is the origin of the modern version of the "grace + works" theology, but I'm open to being proven otherwise.

There was, of course, an earlier "blood atonement" theology taught by Brigham Young, which said that the atonement of Jesus was so limited that it was sometimes necessary for a person to be killed as a human sacrifice to make up for Jesus' deficiency.

That is interesting. In context, Brigham was teaching there might be a way out for them who had committed the unpardonable sin. It's quite acceptable, I suppose, if you wish to contradict him - though I'm not sure why you, of all posters, would want to.

McConkie's theology replaced human sacrifice with works, but even further diminished the role of the atonement. According to McConkie, it is not even primarily the atonement that saves us. Salvation comes, according to him, from "grace coupled with obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel." Grace through the atonement, therefore, is only half of what saves us. The other half is our own efforts and good works. The LDS Bible Dictionary even took this one step further and taught salvation by works alone, with the grace of Jesus and his atonement just being there to help us do the works we need to save ourselves, which is basically Pelagianism. Somewhere between "grace + works" and "works alone" pretty well reflects the state of late 20th century Mormon thought, though there has recently been a movement to return to a more Joseph Smith-era understanding of salvation alone by the atonement and grace of Jesus.

Well, I went looking at the Bible Dictionary to see if your characterization could be supported. It doesn't appear so.

Grace

A word that occurs frequently in the New Testament, especially in the writings of Paul. The main idea of the word is divine means of help or strength, given through the bounteous mercy and love of Jesus Christ.

It is through the grace of the Lord Jesus, made possible by his atoning sacrifice, that mankind will be raised in immortality, every person receiving his body from the grave in a condition of everlasting life. It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means. This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts.

Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the fall of Adam and also because of man’s weaknesses and shortcomings. However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23). It is truly the grace of Jesus Christ that makes salvation possible. This principle is expressed in Jesus’ parable of the vine and the branches (John 15:1–11). See also John 1:12–17; Eph. 2:8–9; Philip. 4:13; D&C 93:11–14.

As I trust is obvious, it is not quite what you are asserting: works alone is not being taught. "Total effort" is being taught, and who could disagree with that?

There are also some earlier statements in church publications that could mistakenly be interpreted to be similar to that taught by McConkie, but on closer examination, these authors are arguing against either sola fide, or more specifically, against Free Grace theology, rather than sola gratia. Unlike McConkie and late 20th century Mormonism, they still believed that Jesus' atonement was the sole basis of salvation. They just thought that the gift of grace through the atonement could not be given without a demonstration of works--basically a Catholic or Disciples of Christ understanding of sola gratia. That is still salvation by grace alone, and quite different from McConkie's "grace + works" or the LDS Bible Dictionary's "works alone" model.

Since you don't cite any such statements, it is difficult to evaluate the truth of this claim. I would quite expect you, of all people on this board, to agree that the gift of grace through the atonement cannot be given without demonstrating repentance, through exercising mighty faith and calling upon the name of the Lord in prayer for forgiveness - which itself may quite well be classed a "work," requiring our total effort, no?

Edited May 21, 2012 by Log

[Storm Rider]

No, I am not playing a game of semantics. I am absolutely serious about what I said. I do not appreciate the depreciating remark.

The part about me liking your point or what. Geez, this place is turning into a group of oversensitive ninnies! Yes, it is semantics whether you realize it or not. AND I STILL LIKE YOUR BLOODY POINT!

[CASteinman]

The part about me liking your point or what. Geez, this place is turning into a group of oversensitive ninnies! Yes, it is semantics whether you realize it or not. AND I STILL LIKE YOUR BLOODY POINT!

The problem might be that you were deceived by me agreeing with the poster who presented a formula of faith and grace and so on. I agreed with that poster, only because I felt failure would instigate one of those 1000 year debates -- and also because I felt the poster was being kind to me. Plus, I did not really want to get into detail on my heterodox views. So I agreed to let the point go. Perhaps I should not have, because I really do not agree with the formula.

We are saved by Jesus. Saying anything else is confusion, misleading, and wrong. To me this is not merely semantics -- because I actually do not agree with any other statement on the matter. I do not agree that we are saved by grace. I do not believe that we are saved by our works. I do not believe we are saved by faith.

Moreover, unless I am actually talking about doctrines of Justification and Sanctification, I do not even like the phrase "we are justified by ____" (fill in the blank). Because I think it is shortcut in most people's minds for "saved".

I believe we are saved by Jesus. He has the coins in his pocket to pay the toll. He has the keys to unlock the door. He has given us some commandments by which we may come to Him and through Him, to the Father. But... and to me this is important ... Jesus is in charge and is the judge and may suspend or bend or who knows what the conditions by which He allows people to pass because He is Lord (Dictator) of this and has the sole power to decide.

I am not able, nor worthy to judge any decision He makes. Even just saying that sentence -- even the notion that someone MIGHT object to it, is to me, horrible and I don't even want to think about it.

Whatever He decides, He decides. That goes for me. That goes for others. My faith and belief in Him is that he is Just and Merciful. I really believe that. But I also believe He is Lord and Master and has a Perfect Knowledge and whatever He says -- is. If that should happen to not match my ideas of what is Just or Merciful or Fair or whatever, its absolutely 100% not my call. And I hate even saying that. It should not be an issue.

To me, here is the bottom line: Jesus will have to like us enough to recommend us to His Father.

To me this is far more than semantics. Our formulas of words about grace and faith and works are almost like a kind of incantations that soothe us. They are, in my mind, horrible mistakes driven by the darkness of the apostasy. We have taken the words of Paul and of James, who I suspect had NO IDEA that their epistles would be parsed letter by letter to detect secrets in them and to evolve intricate curly-cue doctrines upon those words -- doctrines debates for millennia -- and filling so many books that they could form a whole library by themselves. What human being's words could stand the weight of that without breaking?

But because of that history and tradition, we are almost forced to couch our doctrinal statements in ways that bow down and worship these words from so long ago.

I also think that resetting discussions about "faith" and "works" and "grace" by remembering the real Source of our salvation, immediately clarifies all those issues, without a need to rely on formulaic recitations.

So, it is not just semantics to me. But if that is all it is to you.. that is all it is.

However I think you misunderstood me because of my agreement with another poster, and I am sorry for doing that because it led to the misunderstanding.

I sort of feel bad that my views are kinda heterodox. But.. they are what they are. At least, I don't think that they are grounds for release from membership and I don't think they are unsupportable.

Edited May 21, 2012 by CASteinman