About “Sola Fidelity”

As I am sure some will be concerned about the title of this blog (as some have been over the same title at my old xanga), please allow me the opportunity to ease those concerns. 

So, Why “Sola Fidelity”?

First, I thought the name was cool, provocative, and unique. When I put “Sola Fidelity” on the heading of my xanga over a year ago, I Googled the phrase and found only one hit. The hit was from a Roman Catholic message board where some users were arguing over ”Sola Fide“, but referring to it as “Sola Fidelity”. Thus, if that site is at all representative of Roman Catholic dogma, any accusation that this is Romanism can be dismissed because they seem to even reject “Sola Fidelity”.

Second, the church in America is horribly lawless. “Easy believism“, “Once Saved, Always Saved” (which is not the same as the Perseverance of the Saints), making a distinction between the calling of Believers and the calling of Disciples, etc. has reduced “Sola Fide” to “Sola Assensus“, where the minimum requirement for church life is a nodding of the head at certain ideas about Jesus, if anything is required at all. The result of this is that the Church in America is not at all visibly distinguishable from the unchurced. We need to be reminded, and warned, that the only sort of faith that can lay hold of the redemption purchased by Christ is no dead faith, but works by love (WCF XI.II).

So, if by “Sola Fidelity”, it is taken that I am adding “faithfulness” to the “faith” which is the lone instrument of the believer’s union with Christ and justification, rest assured that I am only doing it in the sense that James does. :) Note that James 2 is cited by the framers of the Westminster Confession in the chapter on Justification, in the section alluded to above (WCF XI.II). This should lay to rest the modern notion that James’ usage of the word differs from Paul’s. They both taught Sola Fide. But they also both taught that only a living, active, obedient faith qualifies as the “fide” in “Sola Fide“. Thus, they also taught “Sola Fidelity”.

10 Responses to “About “Sola Fidelity””

  1. Jerry Says:
    July 2, 2008 at 7:02 am

    Mr Smith,

    Concerning paedocommunion on GreenBaggins blog

    I have heard Steve Wilkins disarm the “whoever” argument by credo’s in 1 Cor 11:27 with the “anyone” of 2 Thess 3:10 “if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.” 2 Thess 3:10 doesn’t have children in mind. In the same way 1 Cor 11 is only addressing adults. Hope this reaches you. 07/02/08

    Thanks

  2. Ron Smith Says:
    July 14, 2008 at 8:51 am

    Thanks, Jerry. Good point.

  3. RubeRad Says:
    July 18, 2008 at 7:18 am

    James 2 is cited by the framers of the Westminster Confession in the chapter on Justification, in the section alluded to above (WCF XI.II). This should lay to rest the modern notion that James’ usage of the word differs from Paul’s.

    More accurately, WCF XI.II surgically cites James 2:17,22,26, in making the point that justifying faith is distinct from the good works that “accompany” it. The words are clear: “Faith…is the alone instrument of justification: yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied…”.

    I can find no citation of James 2:21,24 anywhere in the WCF that would support your assertion that James used the term justification in the same way as Paul.

  4. Ron Smith Says:
    July 18, 2008 at 7:48 am

    So the divines ripped verses out of context? Isn’t James 2:14-26 speaking of justifying faith? If so, then how can we say he uses the word “justification” differently than Paul or the WCF? Why can’t we just believe James and understand him to mean that we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” in the sense that we are justified by a working faith?

  5. RubeRad Says:
    July 18, 2008 at 8:17 am

    Because Eph 2:8-9, Rom 3:27, etc. militate that we are not saved by works at all, so either scripture is errant, or James uses the word Justification in a different sense.

    The divines carefully chose the verses that made the point they wanted to make, namely that living faith is distinct from the works which are guaranteed to proceed from it. If they wanted to include James’ usage of Justification systematic definition, don’t you think they would have just cited James 2:14-26 as a whole?

  6. RubeRad Says:
    July 18, 2008 at 8:20 am

    Heh heh, Calvin called you a Sophist…

  7. RubeRad Says:
    July 18, 2008 at 8:40 am

    typo: “James’ usage of Justification in their systematic definition”

  8. Ron Smith Says:
    July 18, 2008 at 11:59 am

    The entire way you read the scriptures is the epitome of sophistry, Rube. I am saying they are using the word “justification” uniformly. You are saying they are saying something different. I am not pitting James against Paul, you are.

    Paul’s justification by faith alone was opposed to the Judaizers attempt to be justified by their national identity as seen in their ceremonial works. (I mean why did Paul write letters to the Romans and Galatians in the first place?) But Paul makes it clear in Galatians 5:6 that their national identifying works as typified in circumcision mean *nothing*. It is only faith working in love that matters. This sort of “law” leaves no room for boasting because it is the law of faith (Rom 3:27).

    So Paul and James agree that only a working faith justifies. Not the dead works of the ceremonial law (Heb 6:1), nor the dead faith of the hypocrites (James 2). Only a living faith working in love justifies.

  9. RubeRad Says:
    July 18, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Well I’m glad we had this chat. As usual, no benefit to either side.

  10. jamey w bennett Says:
    August 22, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    Dude, like your site. I found it through a few clicks on R. Scott “Still in the Dark” Clark.

Leave a Reply