In [Matthew 25:1-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A1-12&version=ESV) we read about ten young ladies (a bridal party) eagerly awaiting the arrival of the groom. Five of them run out of oil and have to go buy more, missing the groom's arrival and thus be excluded from the wedding feast. The groom is universally seen as representing Jesus, the women are seen as representing individual believers, and the oil is generally seen as representing God's grace. (See [my analysis](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/20227/10092) on the parable and especially the symbolism of the oil.) A surface reading would seem to indicate that all the women were nominally believers in Jesus, but someone of them did not properly prepare for his arrival (i.e. for their death or Jesus' Second Coming). This would suggest that there is more to salvation than faith alone - an aspect that can be "bought". How do *sola fide* adherents explain this passage? A good answer should cite published commentary by notable advocates of salvation by faith alone.

In the Pure Land school of Buddhism, especially in Japan, there is an idea which sounds very similar to Protestant soteriology, especially *Sola Fide*, which is basically the idea that one can be "saved" only and entirely by putting one's trust in the saving power of the work of Amitabha Buddha. This is the practice of *shinju nembutsu*, or "*nembutsu* only", was taught by Honen in the 12th century and especially by his disciple Shinran. Now, there are obviously myriad fundamental differences between Buddhism and Christianity. However, I am wondering if any Protestant scholars have commented on the difference between the understanding of faith encapsulated by *Sola Fide* and the understanding of "*nembutsu* only" in Pure Land Buddhism. *Note: I am not asking about differences between Buddhism generally and *Sola Fide*. Also, I am most interested to hear from sources that have actively studied the teachings of Honen and Shinran; if this is your first time hearing about Pure Land Buddhism, please do not answer unless you first studying it thoroughly or cite sources which have already done that work for you.* A brief review to see why I'm interested: **Sola Fide** is the Protestant idea that faith alone is necessary for salvation. Our good works contribute nothing to our justification. It is intimately tied to the idea of *Sola Gratia*, which is that salvation is accomplished solely by the grace of God. **Shinju Nembutsu** is based on a statement in the *Sutra of Infinite Life* wherein the Amitabha Buddha makes a series of vows before becoming enlightened. The eighteenth of these vows is > If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings in the lands of the ten quarters who sincerely and joyfully entrust themselves to me, desire to be born in my land, and call my Name, even ten times, should not be born there, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment. Excluded, however, are those who commit the five gravest offences and abuse the right Dharma. Since Amitabha did attain enlightenment, the followers of Honen and Shinran taught that this statement must true that all who sincerely trust in Amitabha will be born into his land (where they would later be able to attain enlightenment). The more radical idea of "*nembutsu* only" is related to the Buddhist concept of Dharmic decline, which basically means (for Shinran), that in the present age it is not possible to attain enlightenment by good works, and thus the only hope for mankind in the present age is the work of Amitabha. Hence, one must only say "*namu amita butsu *" (I trust in Amitabha) with true faith, and one will be saved. As a further parallel with Protestant soteriology, Shinran also apparently taught that this faith is a gift from Amitabha to the believer, and not something which arises from within the believer himself.

I will often engage in dialogue with Catholics and Orthodox Christians who tell me that the doctrine of their churches affirms that salvation is by grace through faith. If that is true, then what distinguishes Lutherans from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians?

The Bible says > It is by grace that you are saved, by the means of faith. And it does not come from you, it is the gift of God’. (Eph 2:8). > So faith comes from what we hear, and what we hear comes from the word of Christ.’ (Rom 10:17). According to the passages of the Bible quoted (Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 10:17), faith and grace are necessary for salvation. However, these passages also emphasize the importance of hearing the word of Christ. In this context, is it possible to be saved without having heard of Jesus? Can we be saved without having heard of Jesus?

Two of the Five Solas are: - Sola Gratia: Salvation by Grace Alone - Sola Fide: Justification by Faith Alone If salvation is by "grace alone", how can "faith alone" be added as well? Only one of these two should be chosen in order to use the term "alone". From scripture grace and faith work together, e.g.: > ... we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand ... *(Romans 5:2, ESV)* > > For by grace you have been saved through faith. *(Ephesians 2:8, ESV)* Suppose someone builds a bridge over a chasm to rescue a group of hikers from a great disaster, and announces to all hikers that the bridge has been built. Arriving on the safe side, someone tells the hikers: "You arrived here *only* through the goodwill of the bridgebuilder", and "You arrived here *only* because you actually crossed the bridge". How logical is that? Clearly, the two must work together (and not together, although separately alone)?

I've been digging into "the new perspectives on Paul" and thinking that many of the "new perspectives" seem like, or lead to, traditional Catholic/Orthodox perspectives on Justification. Specifically, the idea that when Paul refers to "works of the law," he is referring exclusively to the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law. This would seem to shatter all the Protestant go-to verses that supposedly prove sola fide. **TLDR:** If you read "works of the law" to mean works of the ceremonial Mosaic law (i.e., circumcision) exclusively, then what is left to support the doctrine of sola fide aside from Luther's Occam-inspired philosophy?

> [**1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (KJV)**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:1-3&version=KJV) > > 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. > 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. > 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Those verses are commonly interpreted to mean that charity is also necessary for salvation, even "though I have all faith." That interpretation opposes the doctrine of Sola Fide. How then do Sola Fide adherents interpret this passage?

I've heard it reported that Martin Luther told his parishioners to "sin boldly". I'm not sure if this is based in fact and his writings or something that is made up by Catholics to paint him badly. If he *did* say this, what's the original source/context, and how is it explained? Is he claiming that sin has no *ultimate* consequences? Is he claiming that sin has no consequences whatsoever? Is he claiming that it's "ok" to sin? Please help me to exegete Luther's statement.

The idea of justification seems to come often in Paul, Romans 3:20: > Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in > his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin Jesus affirms something even more bluntly, John 5:24: > “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who > sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over > from death to life. However, why does justification even matter, and how is it that the justified are not even coming into judgement, since, everything seems to end up in judgement anyways: Romans 2:6 > God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” Jesus (Matthew 7:21): > Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of > heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

Evangelicals believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith, that Christ's death and resurrection alone is the basis of their Salvation. Is this comparable to the Catholic concept of salvation?

Roman Catholics Christians reject the concept of faith alone (ie that we are justified solely by our faith in Jesus Christ) and that we are justified by both our faiths and our works, but how do they interpret Ephesians 2:8-9 which clearly teaches faith alone? > For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: > it is the gift of God: > > Not of works, lest any man should boast.

On Protestant theology, Sola Fide is understood as: > Sola fide—the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works—is simply recognizing what is taught over and over in Scripture—that at some point in time God declares ungodly sinners righteous by imputing Christ’s righteousness to them But I hear many Protestants, such as John MacArthur, who claim that Catholicism doesn't teach the true Gospel: >As long as the Roman Catholic Church continues to assert its own authority and bind its people to “another gospel,” it is the spiritual duty of all true Christians to oppose Roman Catholic doctrine with biblical truth and to call all Catholics to true salvation. But how can this be? I think that every (faithful and informed) Catholic you meet on this site and in real life will say that they have faith in the resurrection of Christ and his teaching. So on the view of Sola Fide, can’t Catholics still be expected to go to heaven since they express faith? Or am I missing something here?

*Sola fide* (Latin for "by faith alone") is a defining doctrine of Protestantism. Wikipedia defines it as follows: > The doctrine of sola fide asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith alone, excluding all "works". All mankind, it is asserted, is fallen and sinful, under the curse of God, and incapable of saving itself from God's wrath and curse. But God, on the basis of the life, death, and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ alone (solus Christus), grants sinners judicial pardon, or justification, which is received solely through faith. How does repentance fit into this doctrine? Is it possible to be unrepentant of sin (whether for some sins or all sins that one has committed) and yet still receive pardon for those sins? Is repentance considered a "work" in that it is ultimately unnecessary for justification?

> **James 2:24, RSVC2E:** You see that *a man is justified by works* and not by faith alone. Many times I've heard Protestants claim that James isn't really saying what he appears to be saying here. They will say something along the lines of "James isn't saying that we are justified by works, he is saying that works are the sign and fruit of faith. If you have faith, you will naturally do works" I have no problem with saying that works are the fruit of faith and that if you have faith you will naturally do works, however *that is not what this verse is saying*. This verse very explicitly says that we are justified by works. That is, our works affect our justification in some way. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that we are supposed to just take the verse at face value and say that we can increase and decrease our justification via our good and bad works. In this view "Justification" is not a binary attribute which you either have or don't have, but instead a quantitative property which everyone has and which can increase or decrease as time goes by, such that someone can have more justification than someone else (and be rewarded in heaven appropriately). What is the protestant explanation for this verse, without ignoring it or handwaving it away? Obviously *works do justify us* according to James 2:24, so in what sense?

There are many who have pointed out that Luther added the word, "alone" to Romans 3:28 (you can read one such example in this question ) so that the Luther Bible reads: > for we reckon a man to be justified by faith alone without deeds of law where the Greek reads: > for we reckon a man to be justified by faith without deeds of law Is this true?

How do Reformed Protestants interpret Matthew 18:18? ------ >Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. - Matthew 18:18 I am seeking answers from Christians under the Reformed Protestant denomination (e.g. Presbyterian, Calvinists) which upholds onto the 5 solas of the Reformation (*sola fide, sola christus, sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola deo gloria*)

One of the key issues in the Reformation was the doctrine of *Sola Fide*, that is, that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works. What, then, is the biblical basis for this belief?

"Faith Alone"? -------------- If you have heard the term "Protestant" before, chances are you have also heard the saying "faith alone." The way Protestants speak of "faith alone" might almost give one the impression that Luther and his band of rebels chanted this mantra all the way out of the Catholic cathedral as they defected from the Mother Church and set off to seek a better way. So what is the story on this "faith alone" concept? As a Protestant, the first place I go when I have questions is Scripture. ("Sola Scriptura," right?) When I do a query in the NASB Bible on "faith alone" this is the only entry that comes up: > You see that a man is justified by works and **not by faith alone**. ***-James 2:24*** That is humorous. *(Of course, from what I am told, Luther did not believe that the book of James belonged in the canon of Scripture anyway... but I digress.)* So where did the idea of "faith alone" come from? From what I understand , Luther had translated the following verse into Latin, at which point the Catholic church back-translated it into German, incorrectly rendering the bolded term as "faith alone": > For we maintain that a man is justified by **faith** apart from works of the Law. ***-Romans 3:28*** So the Catholics rendered the Latin as "**faith alone** apart from works of the Law," and were outraged. However, Luther maintained that the Catholics had mistranslated his Latin, and that the Latin *solum* ("alone") was necessary **in Latin** to convey the meaning of the sentence, though they were correct that the extra term was unnecessary in German. So in Luther's mind, the Latin was accurate **with** *solum* ("alone"), and the German was accurate **without** *allein* ("alone"). **All that to say it seems that in Luther's mind "faith alone" was nothing more than a Catholic mistranslation! *So how did it become a Protestant mantra?!*** To further complicate matters, Romans 3:28 does not contrast faith with ***works***, but with ***works of the Law***; i.e. the Mosaic Law. Yet the modern Protestant mantra seems to contrast faith with ***any sort of action.*** My Question ----------- So, can someone explain the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone" to me? Do I have my facts straight about its origin (a Catholic mistranslation from Latin to German)? If so, how in the world did a Catholic mistranslation (that Luther rejected) become a Protestant mantra?! Also, is this doctrine really as foundational to Protestantism as people think it is? And what does this doctrine even ***mean***? Is it "faith apart from any action"? Is it "faith apart from the Mosaic Law"? Something else? Would Luther even affirm the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone"? -------------- *Related: What is the biblical basis for salvation by faith alone (sola fide)? This question asks how a person would justify this doctrine from Scripture. It's not the same as what I'm asking here, but it is relevant none the less.* *Also related: Can someone help me cite Luther's explanation of faith alone to Catholics ? This question asks for a particular source to use in an upcoming blog post. Not at all what I'm asking, but related none the less.*

I just watched a video with an Orthodox professor, in which he said that "Sola Scriptura" came first, and then "Sola Fide". Is that true? The best I can gather from the Wiki articles on these two topics is that both of them came pretty much simultaneously. The [video itself](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1YiItwrOSg&t=602s) is in Russian. Here is my translation of his words (starting at 5:57): > …And all these new ideologues outraged by this so called scholasticism > |of Roman Catholic Church| have declared, “The truth is only what the > Scriptures say. Only the Scriptures and nothing else! Period. Let’s > abandon all these theologians!” This apparently magnificent thesis > made a big impression on many Christians. Because many had already > been racking their brain over some speculations by some |theologians| > like Duns Scotus or Thomas Aquinas. Indeed, their speculations were > just abracadabra and no one really knew what to make of it. > > So, they said, “Only the Scriptures!” Perfect! Who would’ve dared say > anything against that? It really sounded just perfect. > > But what was the outcome of that? |The outcome of that was:| “You > think this way?”, “And you think another way?”, “And you have yet > another opinion?!” So, as a result, the whole Protestantism began to > fall to pieces. Soon it was like peas spilled and scattered all over > the floor. Everyone had his own opinion. > > And where was the criterion for determining who was right and who was > wrong? How was one to know which opinion was correct? Well, it was > already too late |to look for such a criterion|. There were no > authorities anymore. The Fathers were no longer held as the authority. > Each person now considered his own way of thinking and his own > understanding as true. The truth for each person was now his own thoughts > and convictions. And each one would claim now, “That’s how the Holy > Spirit showed me this!” (|Of course, it begs the question,| “How can > it be the Holy Spirit if you are arguing with one another and just > can’t find any common ground in your understanding?!”) They were > really now all scattered like peas on the floor! You see? This is how > sometimes a very attractive thesis, which one would think shouldn’t > cause any disagreement, can |turn out to be false|. > > So what did they finally arrive at? They arrived at another thesis, > which came right after “Sola Scriptura”, and that thesis is > indisputable in Protestantism – the whole Protestantism is standing on > this thesis like on a strongest foundation. This thesis is “We are > being saved only by faith” By what kind of faith? By believing that > Jesus Christ is the Lord, that He has suffered on our behalf, that He > has redeemed us from sin, that we are saved through His sacrifice… So he seems to be claiming here that "Sola Fide" was put forth as a reaction to the many divisions among Protestants caused by "Sola Scriptura". Thus, his chronology is as follows: Sola Scriptura –> divisions –> Sola Fide This contradicts to a story that I heard before about Martin Luther climbing some ladder on his knees in some temple and suddenly recalling, if I remember correctly, Rom 1:17 ("The righteous will live by faith"), which happened even prior to 95 theses. However, I may have gotten this story wrong and my knowledge on Reformation is quite limited, so I don't know.

Historical Protestantism (particularly in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions) have since the Magisterial Reformation held to two doctrines relating what is required of an individual for salvation. The first is the doctrine of *Sola Fide*, meaning "by faith alone". This principle states that salvation is not by works of man, but by faith in Christ. In fact, not only are works insufficient to merit salvation on their own, they account for not even a portion of our salvation--it is, rather, *wholly* through faith in Christ. The second doctrine was worked out by Luther and put into its present form by his collaborator and successor, Melancthon. This doctrine is simply a definition of faith, or sometimes known as the three aspects of faith--as such, it is intended to explain what is required of the "faith" for salvation "by faith alone". The doctrine has three steps: 1. *notitia* One must know the basic information (or "content") such as Christ's death and resurrection. 1. *assensus* One must agree that the basic information is correct. In other words, he/she must not only have heard that Christ died and rose again, but they must believe that he did do that. 1. *fiducia* One must trust in Christ, and rest on the knowledge that the content to which he/she assented is sufficient to save. It is this last piece--fiducia--that I struggle with reconciling with the concept of Sola Fide. Scripture makes clear that these first two points are insufficient (James 2:19 ), and on the face of it, it makes sense that we must trust in Christ for our salvation. Where I struggle is that *fiducia* puts faith in functional terms. This means that, although in theory, I trust in Christ for my salvation, I don't always do so in practice. Here's an example: I'm can be a bit of a control freak, and sometimes yell at my wife in trying to assert my control. I am not loving her as I'm commanded to do so, and it stems from my pride. Although I think I trust in Christ for my salvation, my actions show that I am considering another functional 'gospel' (control) of 'salvation' and another function 'god' (myself) that will effect that 'salvation'. When I stop and think about it, I know that I am no god, and that my gospel is no gospel, but I do stumble and my actions reveal my heart. In fact, I would argue (and Luther has) that every sin follows such a pattern. To come at the problem more directly, this notion of *fiducia* makes my faith dependent upon my works, whereas "Sola Fide" asserts that salvation is through faith and not works. How does this puzzle fit together?