What is Reddit's opinion of Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I'd be more than happy to accept an apology if I felt you would stop bearing false witness against Protestants and stop misrepresenting the Reformation.

I highly suggest reading Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.

When you finish let contact me and let me know what you think.

What some today assert as sola fide (faith alone) is far from the teaching of the Reformers. In fact it explicitly contradicts what they were teaching.

A common teaching of the Reformers was while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone and faith that justifies cannot be solitary. The Reformers would agree that those who are justified do good works.

Lutherans and the principle of sola fide do not reject good works. The contemporary notion of, “I’m saved by faith so I can return to my material ways and do whatever I want!” is a modern invention and misrepresents and trivializes the Reformation era principle of sole fide.

"This contemporary teaching seriously misconstrues what the Reformers unanimously taught. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." (Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.)

Sola fide (faith alone) means we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. That does not equate to deeds/works being meaningless. That’s not what scripture teaches and that’s not what the Reformers taught.

> as a Catholic I've always found that the "sola fide" tenet of Protestantism and its derived denominations is the source of a huge problem in the perception of Christianity in the public eye.

My friend in Christ, careful with casting stones about who’s giving the church a black eye in the public eye.

Perhaps instead consider your perception of the solas is faulty.

What some assert as faith alone is Bible onlyism and that’s far from the teaching of the Reformers. In fact it explicitly contradicts what they were teaching.

A common teaching of the Protestant Reformers was while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone and faith that justifies cannot be solitary.

"This contemporary teaching seriously misconstrues what the Reformers unanimously taught. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." (Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.)

The Reformation era concept of the solas is not sola [insert thing] and nothing else!” Sola fide means we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. That does not equate to deeds/works being meaningless. That’s not what scripture teaches and that’s not what the Reformers taught.

> I would just like to say that from my pov protestants have a misunderstanding of Catholics.

Point taken.

Now respectfully I’ll say that from my pov Catholics often have a misunderstanding of sola fide.

> We are saved by God's grace, but we actually have to try to do our best and can't just do whatever sin we would like assuming we will be saved regardless.

Case in point; sola fide is not “do whatever sin we would like assuming we will be saved regardless.”

That is far from the teaching of the Reformers. This misconception seriously misconstrues what the Reformers unanimously taught.

“Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.

A common teaching the Protestant Reformers was while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone and faith that justifies cannot be solitary.

Christian liberty does not live in idleness; Lutherans do not reject good works.

> True faith is embedded in works, it's not enough to speak empty words. If you say you believe in Jesus you have to actually try to love your neighbor in practice too, otherwise it's not faith.

Correct. Sola fide means: we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. That does not equate to deeds/works being meaningless. That’s not what scripture teaches and that’s not what the Reformers taught.

Our deeds/works are evidences or “fruits” of one who has faith and is saved.

> I mean why he made a whole new denomination,

Luther loved the Catholic Church and didn’t want a new denomination. He was a reformer who wanted to reform the Church’s worldliness and corruption.

It makes no sense to claim he wanted to make a whole new denomination. You don’t risk your life trying to reform something you hate and want to leave.

You should really read Getting the Reformation Wrong.

> why not stick to catholicism, just without bad things that he meant...

Roman Catholicism refused to reform the bad things.

> If they expelled him, why would he accept that if they were flawed anyway?

Excommunication doesn’t care if you accept it.

> with all due respect this might do better as a Google search.

With all due respect Luther didn’t remove books from his Bible, and an academic resource would serve much better: Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings by James R. Payton Jr.

Tagging/u/byzantium

We agree on much my friend but I have to humbly correct this:

> What the historical research of NPP shows is that the 16th century Protestant view of belief alone is incorrect ...

Then unfortunately they misrepresent the Reformers. Unfortunately many do, they assume sola fide means faith alone and nothing else. That misrepresents the Reformation and the Reformer’s teaching.

Many just translate the solas from Latin into English and assume that’s the principle. Then they post-hoc add the view “... and nothing else”. That’s strawmanning.

Lutherans do not assert faith alone and nothing else just as we do not assert scripture alone and nothing else. This contemporary teaching [e.g. a solitary faith and nothing else] seriously misconstrues what the Reformers unanimously taught. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." (Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.)

Faith alone and nothing else is not the Reformation era concept of the doctrine. In context James is writing to guard against those who relied on faith without works. In another context, Paul is writing to guard against those who relied on faith and our own works.

> OK. I'll provide the answer. Sola scriptura literally means "scripture alone".

All you’ve done here is translated two Latin terms into English and presumed that defines the principle.

> That is one of the tenets of the Reformation.

False. Please read Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, by James R. Payton Jr. He corrects common misunderstandings of what the Reformers meant by sola fide and sola scriptura.

The Reformers never asserted such a solitary faith aka Bible onlyism.

> Luther and the other reformers began to prioritize the Bible as the only authority on the life of the Christian, and here we are.

False. That misrepresents the Reformation. The Reformers never asserted Bible “onlyism”.

Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, by James R. Payton Jr., corrects common misunderstandings of what the Reformers meant by sola fide and sola scriptura.

For instance the word Trinity isn’t in the Bible yet Lutherans believe and confess it. God’s omni attributes aren’t in the Bible but Lutherans believe and confess them. The ecumenical creeds aren’t found in the Bible but Lutherans believe and confess them.

My friend your claim doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

> Catholics and Orthodox and even mainline Protestants do not hold this view.

Even so you misrepresented the Reformers.

I’ll address the question in your title. If you like we can continue about Peter.

First and foremost: the Reformation principle of sola scriptura is not the Bible – and nothing else [mic drop]!

1. Sola Scriptura is not bible only-ism.

2. Sola scriptura does not even mean the Bible alone is the highest authority. Sola scriptura acknowledges that God is Sovereign and He alone is the highest authority.

3. Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to scripture to support their teachings. The phrase “It is written …” occurs over 70 times in the New Testament. This is the heart of sola scriptura: norming (grounding, supporting) teachings with scripture.

For example:

4. Trinity: the word Trinity isn’t in the bible yet Lutherans believe and confess the Trinity. Why? It’s normed by scripture.

5. The ecumenical creeds: are not in the bible yet Lutherans believe and confess them. Why? Because they’re normed by scripture.

6. The Reformers upheld the importance of the early creeds and ecumenical councils, not to mention many of the writings of individual church fathers, as secondary authorities that helped to regulate the right interpretation of Scripture even as they themselves were subject to Scripture’s own regulation.

7. Lutherans believe and confess that Jesus is God manifest. As such we believe and confess that Mary is the mother of God. We reject Nestorianism that insists that Mary is only the mother of Christ.

8. Lutherans do not go beyond the distinction of Scripture's position over tradition to make Scripture an enemy of tradition. As to can see the practice of norming doctrine by scripture actually allows the liberty for traditions and many kinds of secondary authorities.

9. The Reformers were prolific writers and constantly reference the writings of the early Christian Fathers. They felt they were "good, useful, and pure books, such as interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, refutations of errors, and expositions of doctrinal articles" have their place too. They are not to be rejected or spurned … and are to be accepted and used as helpful expositions and explanations. Why? Because they are normed by scripture.

10. Judaism: the concept of Sola Scriptura goes back to the Jewish roots of Christianity and the concept of divine law; Moses wrote, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it”

11. Solomon wrote, “Every word of God proves true … Do not add to his words lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar”

12. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, “You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition”; Jesus rebuked the Devil quoting scripture.

13. Apostolic Era: Paul’s letters were the earliest and first New Testament books in final form. Paul declared that God-breathed writings are sufficient and warns: Do not go beyond what is written, 1 Corinthians 4:6. Peter equals Paul’s writings to scripture and warns the brethren that, “knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.”

14. The contemporary misunderstanding is: “The bible – and nothing else!” That misconstrues what the Reformers taught. To the Reformers sola scriptura meant: scripture contained all knowledge necessary for salvation.

I highly recommend the book by James R. Payton Jr. Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings It corrects common misunderstandings of what the Reformers meant by sola fide and sola scriptura.

Rule of thumb: the issue was never over traditions or other authorities – the issue is and always has been traditions/authorities that contradict scripture.

> 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (1 Corinthians 11:2 as well) directly states that there are traditions, outside the epistles and Gospels, that the early Christians followed. This is Biblical proof that the Christians in the first century believed/practiced things the NT does not talk about directly.

1. Historical fact: the issue was never about traditions. The issue is traditions that contradict scripture.

> John even ends his Gospel with saying that he did not write every important thing that Jesus talked about down. Why? Because the Church would also carry those words in its traditions.

Nope. John’s question was rhetorical and in context John provides an answer to his own question to explain why: “Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

Nothing about the Church teaching them in its traditions. That’s your answer; not John’s.

> If you put this with the writings of the early Church fathers, you will see that "easy believism" as essentially preached by Luther and the like and is now widely accepted by most Protestants, is not historical.

You ignore the writings of the Reformers and strawman them to misrepresent what they actually taught and preached. The Reformers were prolific writers and it’s historically documented they in fact did not teach/preach “easy believism”.

"This contemporary teaching (“easy believism”) seriously misconstrues what the Reformers unanimously taught. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." (Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.)

The Reformers taught that Christian liberty does not live in idleness. “Here works begin; here a man cannot leisure … We do not therefore reject good works; on the contrary we cherish and teach them as much as possible. … Our faith in Christ does not free us from works but from false opinions concerning works.” The Freedom of the Christian, Martin Luther.

What are these false opinions? Easy believism aka cheap grace.

Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonheoffer coined the phrase “cheap grace” to describe “easy believism”. In his book The Cost of Discipleship Bonheoffer reemphasized the teaching of the Reformers and “drawing on the Sermon on the Mount, Bonheoffer answers these timeless questions by providing a seminal reading of the dichotomy between "cheap grace" and "costly grace." " Bonheoffer wrote, “cheap grace, is the grace we bestow on ourselves – grace without discipleship. Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life." Bonheoffer, following the Reformers and scripture, emphasizes the demands of sacrifice and ethical consistency aka discipleship.

I’ll stop here and allow you to respond before addressing your other points. Thanks.

> To clarify, I don't necessarily agree with this article I just posted it to know what people would think about it.

And I shared what I think about it.

> What Protestants do not believe in justification by faith alone?

I wouldn’t know and frankly I don’t have the time to research all Protestant denominations for you.

I’ll share this: traditionally there are 3 Reformation solas: faith alone, grace alone on the basis of scripture alone.

The three traditional Reformation solas are biblical principles formed into a short, condensed format in order to make them more memorable. The post-Reformation theologians used the Latin terms as theological shorthand for the layperson to understand how one is saved.

They were not intended to define nor explain entire doctrines. You cannot simply translate two Latin words like sola fide into English — ignore the historical context and intent — and then assume that’s an entire doctrine.

The Reformation era concept of sola fide is not faith alone and nothing more!!!” Sola fide basically is saying we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. That does not mean all deeds/works are meaningless. That’s not what scripture teaches and that’s not what the Reformers taught.

What some today assert as faith alone is far from the teaching of the Reformers. In fact it explicitly contradicts what they were teaching.

"This contemporary teaching seriously misconstrues what the Reformers unanimously taught. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." (Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.)

Likewise sola scriptura does not mean scripture alone and nothing else!!! Sola scriptura allows for other authorities like tradition and ecumenical councils that are supported by scripture.

For instance the word Trinity isn’t in the Bible and the ecumenical creeds aren’t in the Bible. Yet Lutherans believe and confess them. Why? They’re “normed” or supported by scripture and evident reason.

Tl;dr: You can’t simply translate two Latin terms into English, ignore the historical context and intent, to just presume that’s an entire doctrine.

> how do you explain James 2:24? Doesn't that interfere with sola fide?

Short answer: I explain it in context. Let’s unpack terms and context:

Lutherans: We do not assert faith alone and nothing else (just like we do not assert scripture alone and nothing else.)

James: the author of James is writing to scattered Jewish Christians of the diaspora. The author addresses works and chastises them for ignoring their cultural markers, ancestral customs. These Jewish converts were embracing faith but ignoring deeds. So the epistle’s emphasis is on faith and works.

The Jews of the diaspora seem to have been picking up bad habits of the non-Jewish people they were living around (a trait we see ad nauseam in the OT) and doing the modern equivalent of “thoughts and prayers” with no other action or assistance. James is correcting behaviors saying faith is evidenced in action and vapid warm thoughts are not faith.

We know James is writing to share some wisdom for living outside Jerusalem. We know James is not teaching doctrinal issues but correcting behaviors. (The book of James is often linked to Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and wisdom literature like Proverbs.)

Paul and James both discuss works and faith but – their respective letters are written in totally different contexts and are written for two totally different audiences. The issue was, and has never been, works vs faith – it was about whether the influx of new covenant Gentiles needed to reckon their lack of Jewish kinship by keeping cultural Jewish ancestral customs. The Jewish converts to the Way (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22) had difficulty relinquishing the old covenant national markers (circumcision et al) that set the Jews apart from other nations.

Paul and James do not contradict each other but compliment each other. Nothing they taught contradicts the Reformation era solas: faith, grace on the basis of scripture.

Contemporary views add the post-hoc rationalization of “... and nothing else”. This contemporary teaching [e.g. a solitary faith and nothing else] seriously misconstrues what the Reformers unanimously taught. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." (Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.)

Faith alone and nothing else is not the Reformation era concept of the principle. In context James is writing to guard against those who relied on faith without works. In the other context, Paul is writing to guard against those who relied on faith and our own works.

Martin Luther: A common teaching of Luther and the Reformers was while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone and faith that justifies cannot be solitary.

Many copy/paste the quote about Luther writing that James was an “epistle of straw” but they conveniently leave out context totally ignoring what else Luther wrote about James.

Preface: It’s historical fact that in the first centuries of the Church the authenticity of the book of James was doubted by some and considered it deuterocanonical (Greek, “belonging to the second canon”). The Muratorian canon (190 AD) disputes the book of James and others, Irenaeus and Tertuliian listed canons without James and Eusebius (340 AD) classes it amongst the Antilegomena (contested writings, authenticity or value is disputed) (Church History III.25 and II.23) and Jerome (392-3 AD) gives like information (Illustrious Men 2).

Luther’s “epistle of straw” is not a condemnation. The Reformation era reader would be all too familiar with straw and hay. Hay is from alfalfa/grass and has nutritional value; straw is a stalk lacking nutritional value but was good for other uses like bedding.

As was his way, Luther used a colloquialism of the common German people to explain to them that James had a lackluster portrayal of the gospel but was good for other uses. His audience would have understood exactly what he meant. We are far removed from livestock; they were literally knee deep in it.

Luther went on to explain that he felt as a stand-alone book, “it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ.” His opinion was that it doesn’t share the Gospel of Jesus Christ as good as other epistles (e.g. Romans & Galatians).

Remember, in context, Luther was up against immense opposition and felt the book was not useful in doctrinal controversies of the second and following centuries because it says little about Jesus with respect to what was being debated about him in that era.

Even so in his preface to the book of James, Luther writes: “I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.”

I commend you for reading the Book of Concord!

> I (like Rome, apparently) lumped Lutheran theology in as ahistorical, brand new, and hard core “sola scriptura” to the point of ignoring history.

If I could sticky a post, it would be that Reformation era principle of sola scriptura doesn’t mean Bible onlyism [mic drop]. So many just translate the two Latin words into English and assume that’s the principle.

I also highly recommend Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings by James R. Payton Jr.

It does a great job of correcting common misunderstandings of what the Reformers meant by sola fide and sola Scriptura.

See my previous post for more on this

For those reading along: here’s a definition of the term and it’s historical context.

The Reformation produced three solas: faith, grace and scripture.

They are not doctrine.

They are principles.

They are expressed in slogan form: “We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, on the basis of scripture alone.”

The Reformers used this simple sentence as a mnemonic to help the layperson remember how they are saved.

Sola fide: relates we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. Sola fide obviously speaks to faith. For that reason the principle is silent on the role of deeds/works. That does not equate to deeds/works being meaningless. That’s not what scripture teaches and that’s not what the Reformers taught.

Most likely OP is asserting a straw man version of sola fide (e.g. “Once saved always saved now I can do whatever I want!”) What some today assert as sola fide (faith alone) is far from the teaching of the Reformers. In fact it explicitly contradicts what they were teaching.

A common teaching of the Reformers was while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone and faith that justifies cannot be solitary. Sola fide doesn’t reject works, the Reformers didn’t good works and Lutherans today do not reject works.

"This contemporary teaching seriously misconstrues what the Reformers unanimously taught. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." (Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.)

Sanctification follows Justification.

Justification: legal term; Christ becomes the sinner’s legal advocate. The redeemed in Christ are by law adopted into God’s family and may now legally receive an inheritance. The new person in Christ is justified to God through Christ. The righteousness of Jesus is accredited to the believer (just-if-I’d never sinned.)

Sanctification: spiritual growth in grace that follows justification. God works sanctification through the means of grace. Through the Holy Spirit's work in you faith is increased daily, love strengthened, and the image of God renewed.

James

James is writing to Jewish Jesus followers of the Diaspora. James shares wisdom for living outside Jerusalem. The book of James shares commonality with Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and wisdom literature (Proverbs.)

James is not teaching doctrinal issues; James is correcting behaviors.

The Jewish Jesus followers of the Diaspora were picking up bad habits of the non-Jewish people they were living around (a trait we see ad nauseam in the OT.) They embraced faith but were doing the modern equivalent of “thoughts and prayers” with no other action or assistance. James shares that faith is evidenced in action, and vapid warm thoughts are not the fruits of faith.

James references Abraham, who the Jewish Jesus followers would know all too well. He ends that discourse with: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”.

James harmonizes with Romans 1:17 and doesn’t contradict it: “Righteousness is of God; not man. Righteousness comes by faith, start to finish. The righteous live by faith. Romans 1:17

Righteousness comes from God to man; not the other way around.

48AD: The book of James was authored around 48AD. There’s no evidence of the later break between Judaism and Christianity. This seems to date the book prior to the Jerusalem Council of 50 A.D.

Jerusalem Council

50AD: Paul to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles and elders to resolve the issue of Gentile circumcision. At this point, due to the influx of Gentile converts (especially for the male Gentiles), keeping Jewish markers had become a hot topic. The Jerusalem Council is called to settle the matter.

James was elected to lead and preside over the home Church in Jerusalem and as such James presides at the Jerusalem Council. We also see that James makes the final judgment on the matter, “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God.

This is the beginning of the split between Judaism and Christianity.

Paul

After the Jerusalem Council, and Paul’s successful missions to the Gentiles, he begins writing to Gentile believers emphasizing faith and chastising them for relying on works of the law.

Gentile believers continued to struggle to reconcile Jewish cultural markers and ancestral customs. As such Paul questions cultural markers/ancestral customs of circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath laws, which were cultural markers of Jewish nationalism that set the Jews apart from other nations.

Jews believed that in being Jewish (God’s elect/chosen people) saved them. As such they were born under his covenant and kept the Law to remain under the covenant. Under Christianity rituals and works were not a way of entering into the new covenant.

1. Paul: Righteousness is of God; not man.

2. James: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”

Harmony: God is righteous; not man. Man is counted (deemed, considered) righteous by faith (believing God just like Abraham.)

3. Paul: Righteousness comes by faith, ”start to finish” (e.g. nothing outside faith.) Romans 1:17

4. James: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” James 2:8

Harmony: both Jews and Greeks, are under sin; none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. … For by works of the law no human being[c] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Romans 3:9-20

James writes prior to the Jerusalem Council to Jewish Jesus followers and isn’t addressing doctrinal matters. Paul’s letters are written after the Jerusalem Council, address doctrinal matters to Gentile converts.James and Paul harmonize; they do not contradict. Faith and works are friends; friends don’t need reconciled.

Salvation is through Christ alone; the narrow gate. God founded the new covenant within the covenant system he previously established within Judaism. Jesus is the the mediator of a new covenant in his blood. Jesus is the founder of salvation and the founder our faith.

Faith Alone

A common teaching of the Protestant Reformers was while justification is by faith alone – the Christian’s faith is never alone and faith that justifies cannot be solitary. The Reformers were prolific writers and believed that Christian liberty does not live in idleness.

“Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." (Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.)

Traditionally there are 3 Reformation solas: faith, grace on the basis of scripture. The Reformation era concept of the solas is not sola [insert thing] and nothing else!” Sola fide means we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. That does not equate to deeds/works being meaningless. That’s not what scripture teaches and that’s not what the Reformers taught.

We hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Are deeds/works are meaningless? No of course not. They are evidences aka “fruits” of one who has faith and is saved. Not having a righteousness of our own that comes from the law but that which comes through faith in Christ – the righteousness from God – that depends on faith.

James: writing to scattered Jewish believers of the diaspora to encourage them to endure and live bold Christian lives.

Paul: apostle to the Gentiles, writes primarily to new Gentile converts. Paul is writing to guard against those who relied on faith and also our own works to justify.

Paul is addressing doctrinal issues. James is not.

James addresses practical Christian living that reflects a genuine faith that transforms lives. (The book of James is often linked to Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and wisdom literature like Proverbs.) See James summary)

James addresses works and chastises them for ignoring their Jewish cultural markers and ancestral customs. These Jewish converts were embracing grace through through faith — but ignoring faith in action. Ergo James’ emphasis is on faith and works.

The Jewish Jesus followers of the diaspora seem to have been picking up bad habits of the non-Jewish people they were living around (a trait we see ad nauseam in the OT.) They were doing the modern equivalent of “thoughts and prayers” with no other action or assistance.

James is correcting behaviors saying faith is evidenced in action — and warm thoughts are not faith.

It’s true that both Paul and James discuss works and faith but – their respective letters are written in totally different contexts and written for two totally different audiences.

The issue was, and has never been, works vs faith – it was about whether the influx of new covenant Gentiles needed to reckon their lack of Jewish kinship by keeping cultural Jewish ancestral customs.

Paul and James do not contradict each other but compliment each other. Together they present a fuller picture to harmonize faith and works.

A common teaching of the Reformers was while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone and faith that justifies cannot be solitary.

The Reformation sola of faith alone doesn’t mean what you think it means. Lutherans do not assert faith alone — and then nothing else. This contemporary teaching seriously misconstrues what the Reformers unanimously taught. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone.

I highly recommend: (Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.)

> For me faith is simply believing the bible and doing something about it.

The Reformation principle of sola fide (faith alone) would agree that faith alone is not a solitary faith absent of good works. The fruits of faith are faith in action.

> If you believe that God heals today, you will go out and heal and lay your hands on the sick.

The fruits of faith are faith in action.

> If you believe God is saying there is wrath awaiting in the end of your life, you will repent and be baptized to put on Christ.

The fruits of faith are faith in action.

> If you believe God has forgiven you, you will bestow the same forgiveness to others.

The fruits of faith are faith in action.

Faith and works are friends; friends don’t need reconciled.

A common teaching of the Protestant Reformers was while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone and faith that justifies cannot be solitary.

Christian liberty does not live in idleness. Faith is where works begin. Lutherans do not reject good works; our faith in Christ does not free us from works — but from false opinions concerning works.

Q: What’s a false opinion about sola fide?

Q: A false opinion about sola fide is that it means deeds/works are meaningless. That’s not what scripture teaches and that’s not what the Reformers taught.

Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. “For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." (Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.)

Q: So what do deeds/works actually do?

A: They are evidences or “fruits” of one who has faith and is saved. Not having a righteousness of our own that comes from the law but that which comes through faith in Christ – the righteousness from God – that depends on faith.

Traditionally there are 3 Reformation solas: faith, grace on the basis of scripture. They’re principles in slogan form to act as a mnemonic for the layman to remember how one is saved.

Sola fide (faith alone) simply means we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law.

> … as the reformers understood it.

As the reformers understood it, that does not equate to deeds/works being meaningless. That’s not what scripture teaches and that’s not what the Reformers taught.

Faith alone is based on Luther’s encounter with Romans 1:16-17.

A common teaching of the Reformers was while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone and faith that justifies cannot be solitary.

In the book The Freedom of the Christian Luther urged that Christian liberty does not live in idleness. “Here works begin; here a man cannot leisure …” There’s no question that Luther preached/taught that those who are justified do good works, “We do not therefore reject good works; on the contrary we cherish and teach them as much as possible”.

“Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." (Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.)

Are deeds/works are meaningless?

No.

What do deeds/works actually do?

They are evidences or “fruits” of one who has faith and is saved. Not having a righteousness of our own that comes from the law but that which comes through faith in Christ – the righteousness from God – that depends on faith.

First, lets eliminate ambiguity of terms:

1. Reformation Solas: There are 3 traditional solas that came out of the Reformation: sola gratia, sola fide and sola scriptura. They are expressed as: We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone on the basis of scripture alone.

The solas are not Protestant doctrine. Frankly there’s no “Protestant doctrine” because there’s no “Protestant Church” with a central leadership structure and collectively agreed upon doctrines. The term “Protestant” is a general term that’s too broadsweeping in scope to make comparisons to Catholicism (Roman Catholicism is a Church that has a central leadership structure and collectively agreed upon doctrines.)

In socio-cultural historical context of the Reformation, the Reformers felt the need to coin theological principles in layman’s terms. So the solas are theological shorthand coined in slogan form to be a mnemonic to make them memorable to the layman.

2. Sola Fide (faith alone): based on Romans 1:16-17 that righteousness is of God and revealed from faith for faith (e.g. begins and ends in faith.)

The modern misconception of “faith alone” adds a presumption: “Faith alone and nothing more.” This false assumption of solitary faith misrepresents and trivializes sole fide. This false assumption seriously misconstrues what the Reformers unanimously taught. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong.

tl:dr: A common teaching of the Reformers was while justification is by faith alone – faith is never alone and faith that justifies cannot be solitary. I highly recommend the book Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings.

3. James/Summary: this book was written to Jewish believers. It encourages them to endure and live bold Christian lives. It is a book about practical Christian living and having a genuine faith that transforms lives. In many ways, it is similar to the OT book of Proverbs.

The audience is the scattered Jewish believers of the Diaspora. The author chastises them for ignoring their Jewish cultural markers and ancestral customs. These Jewish converts were embracing faith but ignoring works/deeds. As such the epistle’s emphasis is on faith and works.

The Jews of the Diaspora were picking up bad habits of the non-Jewish people they were living around (a trait we see ad nauseam in the OT) and doing the modern equivalent of “thoughts and prayers” with no other action or assistance. That’s abusing Christian liberty so James is correcting behaviors saying faith is evidenced in action and vapid warm thoughts are not faith.

tl;dr: James is not teaching doctrinal issues – he’s correcting behaviors of Jewish believers to teach practical Christian living.

4. Paul: the apostle to the Gentiles writes to his Gentile Church plants to re-emphasize and correct new covenant doctrines they were founded upon.

5. Paul and James: both discuss the topics of works and faith – but – their respective letters are written in different contexts to two different demographics.

The issue was not works vs faith – it was about Jewish believers abusing Christian liberty and whether the influx of new covenant Gentiles needed to reckon their lack of Jewish kinship by keeping cultural Jewish ancestral customs.

Paul and James do not contradict each other but compliment each other. Each covers aspects of faith and works but nothing they taught contradicts the Reformation era solas: faith, grace on the basis of scripture.

Faith and works are friends; friends don’t need reconciled.

Sola scriptura 101:

1. The Reformation era concept of sola scriptura is not bible only-ism (scripture and nothing else mic drop.)

2. The Reformation concept of sola scriptura does not mean the Bible is the highest authority.

3. The Reformation concept of sola scriptura acknowledges that God is Sovereign and He alone is Sovereign and the highest authority.

4. As such God’s word has authority and is sufficient to inform a sinner how one is saved.

5. The Reformation concept of sola scriptura does not exclude traditions. The issue was never about traditions — but traditions that contradict scripture.

6. The Reformers upheld the importance of the early creeds and ecumenical councils, not to mention many of the writings of individual church fathers as secondary authorities that helped to regulate the right interpretation of Scripture even as they themselves were subject to Scripture’s own regulation.

7. Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to scripture to support their teachings. The phrase “It is written …” occurs over 70 times in the New Testament. (This is the heart of sola scriptura: norming (supporting) teachings with scripture.

For example:

A. The word Trinity isn’t in the bible yet Lutherans believe and confess the Trinity. Why? It’s supported in scripture.

B. The ecumenical creeds are not in the bible yet Lutherans believe and confess them. Why? Because they’re supported in scripture.

I highly suggest the book Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings by James R. Payton Jr. He corrects common misunderstandings of what the Reformers meant by sola fide and sola scriptura.

Thanks for asking! Hope I can help:

1. There’s no collectively agreed upon Protestant views or doctrines. You can’t say “Protestants believe ...” Comparing Protestant doctrines with Catholic doctrines is a false equivalency. To compare you have to address specific denominations who hold collectively agreed upon doctrines.

2. One doesn’t “believe in” a sola. The Reformation solas are simply theological shorthand the Reformers used to communicate biblical principles to the layperson.

3. Traditionally there were 3 solas: grace, faith on the basis of scripture. What some today assert as “faith alone” is far from the teaching of the Reformers. In fact it explicitly contradicts what they were teaching.

4. Faith alone is based on Luther’s encounter with Romans 1:16-17.

5. The Reformation era concept of sola fide is not: faith alone and nothing else [mic drop.]”

6. Sola fide means we are justified by faith apart from the deeds of the Law. That does not equate to deeds/works being meaningless. That’s not what scripture teaches and that’s not what the Reformers taught.

7. A common teaching of Luther and the Protestant Reformers was while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone and faith that justifies cannot be solitary.

False opinions (e.g. solitary faith) misrepresents and trivializes the Reformation era doctrine of sole fide. "This contemporary teaching seriously misconstrues what the Reformers unanimously taught. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." (Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.)

> I beg your pardon - I was referring to …

Case in point. You referred to Protestants, but when pressed, you had to put a proverbial footnote on Protestants^1 to further specify which protestants you’re speaking about in particular: 1.) “some protestant denominations teach that …

The particulars are inconsequential; the point is you had to be more specific when comparing Protestants doctrines. The reality is you just can’t paint Protestants with a broad brush when it comes to doctrine.

Is it though?

Yes.

But in leaving the RCC, both of those new churches showed all that you can break away and found your own church, after all, and there followed a spate of schism and the foundation of new churches that carries on to this day.

Revisionism and frankly, a gross historical inaccuracy. Historical fact:

1. Luther never intended to leave the Catholic Church or found a new one.

2. Luther and did not “break away”; he was excommunicated.

3. The Church’s abuse of indulgences, a symptom of much deeper corruption and worldliness, was the primary factor that caused the split. “I think that Martin Luther’s intentions were not mistaken; he was a reformer … The church was not a role model, there was corruption, there was worldliness, there was greed, and lust for power. He (Luther) protested against this. And he was an intelligent man." Pope Francis on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.

> But problems aren't solved by turning your back on them. They're solved by solving them.

One more time: Luther did not turn his back. The Papacy and all the Catholic leaders who ignored the corruption conspired to turn their back on the Bible and the believers who trusted them.

I strongly suggest reading, Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings by James Payton Jr.

Reformation refresher:

1514 – The Archbishop of Mainz became vacant.

1. An Archbishop named Albrecht wanted multiple dioceses. The prestigious position in Mainz would allow Albrecht to be in the Electoral College.

Mainz was very powerful and highly desired diocese so it didn’t come cheap. The Pope regularly bought and sold church offices to the highest bidder and so Rome required an “installation fee” and a “dispensation fee” for Albrecht to hold multiple sees.

So Albrecht borrowed a large sum of money from the Fuggers, a German family of bankers who regularly worked with the Vatican.

As collateral for the loan, the Fuggers required collateral: a plenary indulgence was to be issued in Albrecht’s dioceses in Germany.

2. Renaissance art and architecture aren’t cheap either and Pope Leo X recognizes this as an opportunity to collect large sums of money from Germany to help pay for the refurbishing St. Peter’s Basilica.

3. Pope Leo grants the indulgence providing that half goes to Rome to pay for the re-design of St. Peters. The Role of Indulgences in the Building of New Saint Peter’s Basilica

4. Half the funds will go to Albrecht to pay off his personal loan to purchase a church office and the other half of the funds will got to Rome to pay for expensive renaissance art & architecture.

1517 – Albrecht hires Tetzel as the Commissioner of Indulgences over Germany. Pope approves; Tetzel is commissioned. Here’s sample sermons from Tetzel with images of indulgence

5. Martin Luther is chair of theology at the Catholic University of Wittenberg and provincial vicar of German provinces. Luther notices parishioners neglecting mass and confession. Investigating he finds they’ve purchased indulgences and have been told they no longer need mass/confession.

6. Luther drafts his Theses of 95 points to debate the abuse of indulgences at the University. Luther mails letters notifying his superiors of the debate. He attaches his Theses for reference.

7. One letter went to Luther’s immediate superior and another other went to Luther’s Archbishop – *Archbishop Albrecht *.

8. Luther was unaware his Archbishop authorized and personally profited from the indulgence.

9. Obviously Albrecht did not respond to Luther but forwarded the 95 Theses to Rome to have Rome shut Luther down.

10. Oct 1518 – Pope Leo X assigns papal theologians to oppose Luther; Luther examined in Augsburg, asked to recant but refuses.

11. Jan 1519 – Luther examined at Altenburg (in Saxony by a Saxon papal nuncio); Luther makes concessions, tentatively agrees to keep silent if his opponents will.

The armistice doesn’t last long:

12. Enter Johann Eck: professor of theology at Ingolstadt University and a master debater; in his work he had gained the patronage of the Fuggers, the German family of bankers who were underwriting Albrecht’s indulgence.

Coincidence? Nope.

13. 1519 Leipzig Debate –Eck desperately wants to expose Luther in a public forum and humiliate him.

14. 1520 – Eck to Italy; Pope Leo X promotes Eck the papal protonotary to condemn Luther’s writings.

15. Jun 1520 Eck to Germany with papal bull Exsurge Domine (Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther) censuring Luther from all preaching and office of preacher.

16. Apr 1521 – Luther summoned to the Diet of Worms, Emperor Charles V presiding. Luther’s writings are piled on a table and he’s asked to recant their contents. Luther asks that they show the errors with scripture and even offers to revoke all errors and burn his own writings if he can be “… convicted by the testimony of Scripture or by evident reason”.

No one does that; Luther stands and refuses to recant.

17. Jan 1521 – Papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem Papal Bull of Excommunication of Martin Luther and his followers set a sixty day time limit during which Luther was required to make an act of obedience to the Pope.

18. On the same day apostolic letters were sent to the General Inquisitor for all Germany Archbishop Albrecht and Eck granted them the appropriate powers to fight against and judge all the Lutherans.

19. Nov 1520 – Luther’s time limit expires; he received the original papal bull after the deadline on Dec. 10, 1520.

And you’re trying to argue that Luther broke away and left the RCC? You’re trying to argue that Luther turned his back?