The Armchair Apologist is a series of posts at SouthCon dedicated to matters of faith and religion. Click here to see an index of Armchair Apologist posts. You are welcome to comment on any of these items, but before commenting, please READ THE RULES. To suggest a topic or make a comment by e-mail, send your remarks to armchair@darwen.us

---

Sola Fide, Part 3: Summation And (I Hope) Refinement

Thanks to everyone who participated in first and second parts of my Sola Fide discussion. I really appreciate everyone's input, and while I'm sure that none of us made any converts from one side to the other, I do feel like I learned some things. I learned a lot about the origins of Sola Fide, thanks to Pastor Scott, a Lutheran Pastor who is deeply steeped in Martin Luther's teachings and ideas. And I learned a lot about the ideas and the faith of some of my blogging buddies. So again, from the bottom of my heart, thanks.

Along the way, Pastor Scott posted the following bit of advice about apologetics:

When doing apologetics, we all have to beware of the Straw Man fallacy. That is, we don't want to prop up our opponents like a straw man, stuffing them with fluff, so that it's easier to knock them down. Probably every debater and polemicist is guilty of doing this to some extent.

I appreciate that advice very much, and I was glad to receive it. It's a good guide, and I plan to try very hard to follow it. Looking back over some of what I've written, both in the posts themselves and in the comments, I think there have been times when I've been building and punching straw men. Please bear with me, I am the definition of an amateur.

And so, in closing, to the degree that anyone is interested, here's where I currently stand on Sola Fide in the aftermath of these discussions...

• The Catholic Church was engaged in some terrible practices about the time that Luther posted his list of complaints on that church door. That's not news to anyone, including and especially us Catholics. It is fair to say, in a way, that by taking action, Luther played a major role in saving the Church from many of it's own powerful, corrupt members.



• The doctrine of Sola Fide grew out of Luther's understanding of how salvation works, and was largely a response to many of those corrupt practices. In this day and age, however, there are about a zillion possible interpretations and variations of Sola Fide. Some of them are legitimate Christianity. Some of them are blatant antinomianism.



• Because legitimate faith always leads to a genuine Christian life, which includes genuine Christian behavior, I remain unconvinced that you can separate Christian faith from Christian works in any practical sense.



• I believe that the only practical reason for making the distinction and for arguing in favor of Sola Fide is simply to try to establish a theological barrier between Protestantism and Catholicism. Scott Hahn is a former Presbyterian minister and a Catholic convert. In a recorded talk distributed on CD by The Mary Foundation, Hahn says that as a Protestant he was taught that Sola Fide was the doctrine by which the Protestant faith "stands or falls." I'd argue that at this point, Sola Fide is simply the doctrine that props up Protestantism and justifies it's extraneous existence. I know that that statement is going to seem like a slap in the face, but I promise you that it's not intended to be. It's not that I think Protestantism in-and-of-itself is evil or even bad… I simply see it as unnecessary.



• The corrupt practices that Luther argued against have been (as far as I know) stopped. To the degree that Luther's doctrine of Sola Fide was an argument against "buying" or "working" your way into Heaven, I think it was a good thing. I'm convinced, though, that making these distinctions between faith and works in this day and age is entirely an academic matter. In the last few days I've more or less come to believe that Christ himself would probably think that our arguing about the matter is, ultimately, just a distraction. Considering that I'm the guy who brought it up, this makes me feel kinda silly!



• Sooooooo.... to the degree that Sola Fide means "Salvation comes by full and active faith, and that salvation cannot be bought or bargained for," I agree with it. However, any interpretation of Sola Fide that argues that good works aren’t even necessary for the Christian life and for salvation is an error. An error, and, in my estimation, a road to hell.

And there you have it! I officially declare my interest in debating Sola Fide to be over. Feel free to leave summary comments at this post if you want, but I think I'm done with this topic. For now.

When I get my ideas in order, I intend to move on to some other topics, and I hope to do a better job of debating the actual theological doctrines and to prop up fewer straw men. Some of the topics I want to approach include:

Sola Scriptura
What, as a Christian, would you say is the foundation and pillar of truth? Would you say it's holy scripture, i.e. the Bible? If so, you might be interested to know that the Bible itself doesn't agree with you. Check out First Timothy 3:15 sometime.

Pluralism
C.S. Lewis once wrote about "Christianity and water," the premise that some people dilute their religious practices to make Christianity easier to swallow. I think that in this day and age there's actually a bigger threat to the Christian faith than "Christianity and water." Because of the successful marketing of various age old heresies (gnosticism, pseudo-PanAsianism, "new age" ideas, etc) there are a number of Christians who claim to incorporate bits and pieces of other religions into their faith. They claim to borrow from various religions and end up really following none of them. Christianity and water is a bad thing. Christianity and strange waters is even worse.

Intelligent Design
Some people claim that the concept of "intelligent design," which merely theorizes that our universe was actually intentionally created by some sort of intelligence, is an attempt to "smuggle" religion into public school systems. I disagree. In fact, I believe that teaching "intelligent design" is actually counter-productive and downright destructive to the Christian formation of young people. I hope to explain why with some degree of coherence and intelligence.

I look forward to further debate and discussion… and, again, thanks!