Here is a question that was asked on Christianity StackExchange, as linked at the end of this article:
One of the key points of the Reformation was the doctrine of Sola Fide: that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works. The Reformers thought this was in contrast to the doctrines of the Catholic church.
What, then, is the biblical basis against the doctrine of Sola Fide?
Here is the answer I posted there, as also linked at the end of this article:
The doctrine of Sola fide (Latin for “by faith alone”) holds that:
God’s pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith alone, excluding all “works.”
And that:
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.”
This doctrine is also commonly expressed as:
Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ’s righteousness alone.
(Source for these three quotes: the Wikipedia article on Sola fide)
Belief in Sola fide is confined almost entirely to Protestants, who constitute about 37% of the world’s Christian population (Source: Global Christianity – A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Christian Population – Pew Research Center). In fact, it was the defining doctrine by which Martin Luther distinguished his new form of Christianity from the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, with which he was making a decisive break. Luther said:
This one and firm rock, which we call the doctrine of justification, is the chief article of the whole Christian doctrine, which comprehends the understanding of all godliness. (In Commentary on Galatians)
He said, further, that:
If this article stands, the Church stands; if it falls, the Church falls. (In In Quindecim Psalmos Graduum Commentarii)
The doctrine of Sola fide has therefore been adopted as an essential doctrine, if not the essential doctrine of Christianity by Lutherans and by Protestants in general.
However, the Biblical basis for this doctrine is exceedingly thin. Further, key parts of it are explicitly rejected by the Bible. Its adoption depends upon an ahistorical reading of the Bible, anachronistic definitions of key Biblical words, and hair-splitting ratiocination that has no clear basis in the Bible.
1. The Bible does not state the doctrine of Sola fide
The term “grace alone” appears nowhere in the Bible.
The term “faith alone” appears only once in the Bible, and in that one place it is explicitly rejected:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)
This is the one and only place in the Bible where the term “faith alone” appears. And it specifically rejects the teaching that a person is justified by faith alone.
Because of this statement in James, supporters of the Sola fide doctrine have pumped out a veritable flood of words in an attempt to show that James did not actually mean what he said, “that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” And yet, the fact remains:
In the one place in the Bible that the term “faith alone” appears, it is specifically and explicitly rejected as “justifying,” or saving, a person.
Further, there are no other places in the Bible where the specific wordings used to distinguish Sola fide from the other major doctrines of salvation occur:
- The Bible does not say, “We are justified by grace alone.”
- The Bible does not say, “We are justified through faith alone.”
- The Bible does not say, “We are justified in Christ’s righteousness alone.”
- The Bible does not say, “God has granted sinners judicial pardon.”
- The Bible does not say, “Christ paid the penalty for our sins.”
- The Bible does not say, “God’s pardon is granted and received through faith alone, excluding all works.”
- The Bible does not say, “Justification is received solely through faith.”
None of the phrases commonly used to define and distinguish Sola fide from other doctrines of justification and salvation occur in the Bible. The various definitions of Sola fide sound sort of Biblical, but in fact they are non-Biblical. In other words, Sola fide is not stated in the Bible, nor is it defined using the Bible’s own statements. Its very definition depends on statements that are never made in the Bible.
Summary: The Bible simply does not state the doctrine of Sola fide. And in the one place in the Bible where that term occurs, the Bible explicitly rejects it.
2. Sola fide is asserted as an essential doctrine of the church, which impugns the Bible’s effectiveness as the primary source of Christian doctrine
As noted above, Martin Luther asserted justification by faith alone as an essential doctrine of the church, on which the church stands or falls.
For any doctrine to be considered essential to Christianity, it must be clearly stated in the Bible. Luther himself asserted the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Latin for “by Scripture alone”), meaning that the only proper source of doctrine is Scripture (commonly known among Christians as the Bible).
However, as shown just above, the doctrine of Sola fide is not stated in the Bible, explicitly or otherwise.
Further, until Martin Luther articulated it 1,500 years after the Bible was written, no denomination or sect of Christianity understood the Bible to teach justification by faith alone. In asserting Sola fide as an essential teaching of the Church, Luther is in effect charging the Bible with being so unclear in its teaching that for the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian church or theologian was able to see and perceive it as a central Christian doctrine.
Yes, some Protestants now assert that various Church Fathers and other early theologians taught faith alone, and quote various passages that they claim demonstrate this. But these assertions are contradicted by non-Protestant theologians, and by the wider context of the writings of those early Christian theologians themselves.
The very first figure in Christianity who is universally accepted as teaching justification by faith alone is Martin Luther (1483-1546).
It strains credulity to believe that a doctrine so unclear in the Bible that no one saw or asserted it as central Christian doctrine for the first one and a half millennia of Christianity could be the foundational doctrine of the Christian Church.
Summary: A doctrine that is so unclear in the Bible that it was neither seen in the Bible nor asserted as fundamental Christian doctrine by any Christian church or theologian for the first 1,500 years of Christianity cannot be considered a doctrine taught by the Bible as essential Christian doctrine.
3. Paul did not teach Sola fide
The Bible passages most commonly cited as supporting the doctrine of justification by faith alone come from the writings of Paul. For example, Paul says:
For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. (Romans 3:28)
And:
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
First, notice that Paul did not say “by grace alone have you been saved through faith alone.” Paul never attributes justification to grace alone or to faith alone. Rather, he attributes salvation to grace and to faith.
Beyond that, interpreting the above and similar passages as teaching Sola fide betrays a fundamental ignorance of the historical and doctrinal context in which Paul made these statements.
Here is the short version of what Paul was actually saying:
By these statements Paul, “an apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 11:13), was asserting, against the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, that it was not necessary to observe the works of the Jewish Law, orTorah, such as sacrifice, circumcision, and the various dietary laws in Hebrew Bible. He recognized that Jesus’ teachings superseded those old ritual laws. And being a pragmatist as well, he recognized that Christianity would never spread far and wide in the pagan world if it required its converts to be circumcised and obey all of the Jewish ritual laws.
If you read Paul’s statements about being justified by faith apart from the works of the law in their context, you will almost always find a mention of “circumcision” or some other tell-tale word indicating that when he said “the law,” he was talking about the Torah, which is the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.
It is well-known that Paul relied heavily on the Septuagint, a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible commonly used by Greek-speaking Jews. Many, if not most of Paul’s quotations from the Old Testament come from the Septuagint. In that translation, the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word תּוֹרָה (towrah), “law,” was νόμος (nomos). When Paul used the Greek word νόμος (law), he was very often referring to how that word is commonly used in the Septuagint to refer to the Law of Moses.
For a statement in Paul that rejects Sola fide, see point 4 below. And the main passage from Paul quoted below is by no means the only one in which he says that we must do good works in order to be saved.
Summary: Paul did not teach justification by faith alone. When he spoke of being “justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the Law,” he was arguing that Christians are not required to follow the ritual Law of Moses, which is required of faithful Jews.
4. Sola fide is contradicted by many passages throughout the Old and New Testaments
As stated above, the doctrine of “justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ’s righteousness alone” is not stated anywhere in the Bible. And any doctrine that is not stated clearly in the Bible cannot be considered essential Christian doctrine, required for salvation.
However, that does not even come close to telling the whole story. There is an overwhelming number of passages throughout the Bible stating that our salvation depends not merely on our belief, but on obeying the commandments of God, and on loving and doing good works for our neighbor.
Here are only a very few of these passages, selected to represent the various segments of the Bible:
In the Law:
See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the Lord swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. (Deuteronomy 30:15-20)
In the Prophets:
Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
learn to do good;
seek justice,
rescue the oppressed,
defend the orphan,
plead for the widow.
Come now, let us argue it out,
says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be like snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land;
but if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be devoured by the sword;
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
(Isaiah 1:16-20)
But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live? But when the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity and do the same abominable things that the wicked do, shall they live? None of the righteous deeds that they have done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which they are guilty and the sin they have committed, they shall die. (Ezekiel 18:21-24)
In the Psalms:
O Lord, who may abide in your tent?
Who may dwell on your holy hill?
Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right,
and speak the truth from their heart;
who do not slander with their tongue,
and do no evil to their friends,
nor take up a reproach against their neighbors;
in whose eyes the wicked are despised,
but who honor those who fear the Lord;
who stand by their oath even to their hurt;
who do not lend money at interest,
and do not take a bribe against the innocent.
Those who do these things shall never be moved.
(Psalm 15)
In the Gospels:
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:34-40)
And Jesus stated very clearly who from all the nations would be saved, and who would be condemned:
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left.
“Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’
“And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’
“Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’
“Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’
“Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-46)
In the Epistles:
Paul says:
Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. You say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.” Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.
All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all. (Romans 2:1-16)
And here is Paul’s famous statement giving love primacy over faith, which should put a spike in the heart of Sola fide for all time:
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:13)
Paul agrees with James on this subject, who says:
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead. (James 2:14-26)
In the book of Revelation:
And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”
“See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. (Revelation 22:10-15)
These passages and hundreds of others like them make it crystal clear that our salvation and our eternal life do not depend on faith alone, but also on our works, meaning on how we live.
The Bible does not make the Protestant theologians’ hair-splitting rational distinctions between faith and works, and which one justifies us, and which one follows from the other. Everywhere it says that if we want to be saved and enter into life, we must have faith and do good works just as we are commanded by God.
The common Protestant objection that we would somehow merit heaven by our works, and that this invalidates good works as having any part in our salvation, contradicts the clear, overwhelming teachings of the Bible. We do good works not in order to “merit” or earn heaven and salvation, but because God commands us to do them. If we disobey God’s many commandments to love our neighbor and to do good deeds for our neighbor, then we have turned our back on God. And we cannot be saved if we turn our back on God. It’s that simple.
The Bible is very clear about the requirements for justification and salvation. The doctrine of Sola fide contradicts that clear teaching, which is stated hundreds of times throughout the entire Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.
Further, the doctrine of Sola fide is not only non-Biblical, but it distracts the mind from the overwhelming teaching of the Bible that those who wish to be saved must believe in God and do good deeds of love and service to the neighbor. Sola fide is thus not only contrary to the plain teachings of the Bible, but actually detracts from and confuses the plain teachings of the Bible in the minds of faithful Christians.
Conclusion
The Bible never says that faith alone saves, nor does it say that grace alone saves. That idea never even occurred to any Christian theologian as a key teaching of Christianity until Martin Luther stated it 1,500 years after the Bible was written.
That’s because the doctrine of Sola fide simply isn’t in the Bible. The passages that are quoted to support it have been taken out of their historical context and therefore misinterpreted. The very use of the word “faith” to mean a belief that we hold to is alien to the Biblical meaning of faith, which is not belief, but faithfulness to God.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of passages in the Bible saying that if we wish to live, and to be saved, and to go to heaven, we must love our neighbor and do good deeds for our neighbor.
There are zero passages in the Bible that say that we are saved by faith alone. There are zero passages that say that works are merely the result of faith, but are not in themselves saving, as claimed by proponents of Sola fide. There are zero passages that say that love for the neighbor and good deeds for the neighbor do not justify or save us. There are hundreds of passages that clearly show that the opposite is true.
In short, there is no Biblical basis whatsoever for Martin Luther’s invention of the doctrine of Sola fide 1,500 years after the Bible was written, and especially not for his elevation of it to the central, foundational doctrine of Christianity, on which the Church stands or falls.
(Note: This post is an edited version of an answer I wrote and posted on Christianity StackExchange. You can see the original question on StackExchange here, and the StackExchange version of my answer here.)
For further reading:
- Faith Alone Does Not Save . . . No Matter How Many Times Protestants Say It Does
- Faith Alone Is Not Faith
- Did Jesus Really Die to Pay the Penalty for our Sins?!?
- Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?
- The Logic of Love: Why God became Jesus
Share this:
Lee Woofenden is an ordained minister, writer, editor, translator, and teacher. He enjoys taking spiritual insights from the Bible and the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg and putting them into plain English as guides for everyday life.
Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life 
Lee Agape Greetings to you and your family. A Gift for you… an LDS view on True Salvation see – http://www.jefflindsay.com/faith_works.html
May True Grace BeWith You and those you Love.
In His Eternal Debt/Grace
Kal El
Hi Kal – El,
Thanks for your comment, and for the link. I read and skimmed much of it. Of course, Protestantism represented a rejection of some key parts of Christianity as it had existed up until that time. The doctrine of salvation by faith alone was part of that rejection. It is, as the linked article says, not based on the Bible, but on Luther’s teachings, which were themselves an effort to make a decisive break with the Roman Catholic Church doctrinally.
Though there are, of course, many points of difference between LDS doctrine and Emanuel Swedenborg’s teachings, there are also a number of similarities that may at first seem surprising. However, it is very likely that Joseph Smith had some knowledge of Swedenborg’s theology, which may account for some of the similarities. For more on this, see the article, Did Emanuel Swedenborg Influence LDS Doctrine? by Craig Miller.
Lee thank you for the link, when time allows I will give it a look over. May True Grace be with you and your family.
In His Eternal Debt/Grace
Kal – El
Lee I started a Thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66251-emanuel-swedenborg-and-joseph-smith/ on this topic of Joseph Smith and Emanuel Swedenborg in the General discussions Section.. Perhaps you can visit sometime. I am anakin7 there.
May true Grace Be With you and Those you Love.
In His Eternal Debt/Grace
Kal El
Hi Kal – El,
Thanks for starting that new thread, and for linking to it here. I did fix your link above to point directly to the thread. I know a lot about Swedenborg, but not only a little about Joseph Smith and LDS doctrine, so I might or might not be very useful in that thread.
I read the article linked by one of the participants there (Joseph Smith, Emanuel Swedenborg, and Section 76: Importance of the Bible in Latter-day Revelation, by J. B. Haws), and found it fascinating. Though it does contain a few inaccuracies, it provides some very good scholarship and ideas from an LDS perspective.
Lee thanks for fixing the link so it goes right to the thread. Awesome that you were able to go to the thread I started there and read the linked article by one of the participants. Perhaps you can correct the minor inaccuracies there by way of communicating on the thread your thoughts and observations. Introduce yourself there and tell about your quest/journey to the road you are on today. Let them know that Anakin7 invited you to participate. For info on the LDS Church/Faith a good place to start is http://www.lds.org or http://www.mormon.org
May True Grace Be with you and those you Love.
In His Eternal Debt/Grace
Kal – El
Hi Kal – El,
I’ve created an account there and written a few posts on that thread. Thanks again for starting the thread, and for the reference and your introduction there.
Lee read post # 27 on the thread I started. A LDS individual would like you to read his post to you. May True Grace be with you and those you love.
Kal – El
Hi Kal – El,
Thanks for letting me know. I’ve now responded to a couple of posts added since I was last there, including #27.
Your article is one big straw man. None of your verses seem to threaten Sola Fide except James 2, which makes me think you don’t understand the doctrine or you are purposely misrepresenting it to destroy it (straw man). The doctrine is not faith alone, faith alone, faith alone! The doctrine is that faith is the only instrumental cause that God uses to impute the righteousness of Christ into the believer. That saving faith I just mentioned is never alone. Right there refutes all of your passages except James 2, and all I did was state the doctrine correctly which you failed to do. A true Christian who has true saving faith will never only have faith. Now James 2 when read in context is referring to how a living faith is vindicated or demonstrated, and that is through works. When read in context this is clear, you can’t just pull out James 2:24 from context and claim to refute the doctrine established everywhere else in the Bible.
Hi David,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your comment.
I was going to write a full refutation, but then I reread my article, and realized that what I have written there already refutes your claims. So I would mainly suggest that you read the article again.
The definitions of the doctrine of justification by faith alone that I quoted and refuted are taken from Wikipedia. I didn’t supply my own definition. If you think the Wikipedia definitions are wrong, then I would encourage you to take it up with Wikipedia.
And as I said in the article, not a a single one of the statements you or any other Protestant makes to define and explain justification by faith alone is ever made in the Bible. I was going to list them in refuting your claims, but then I discovered that I’ve already listed most of them in the above article. So I’ll just add three more to cover your claims about the doctrine:
You have simply added three more things to the long list of ideas and beliefs that are part of the doctrine of justification of faith alone that the Bible doesn’t say. Every single one of the beliefs that Protestants state as part of the doctrine of justification by faith alone was made up by human beings, and does not appear in the Bible.
I was also going to refer you to additional articles that also show how wrong and unbiblical the doctrine of justification by faith alone is. But I find that I already listed them at the end of the article. I would encourage you to read those articles as well.
In short, everything you have said here to attack the above article is wrong. Which, in turn, makes me wonder whether you have actually read and understood the article.
Contrary to your statement that this doctrine is “established everywhere else in the Bible,” you can’t quote a single verse from the Bible that states a single element of justification by faith alone, or that states the doctrine as a whole.
That’s because nowhere does the Bible teach such a doctrine, or any of the elements that make up that doctrine. They were all invented by human beings, starting with Martin Luther, 1,500 years or more after the Bible was written.
I encourage you to read the Bible for yourself, without the thick lenses of Luther’s and Calvin’s doctrine of justification by faith alone. If you do this, you will see that the Bible simply doesn’t teach justification by faith alone, but in fact rejects it, and that what I have written here and in the other linked articles is what the Bible actually does say.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free from the false, human-invented doctrines that you have been taught.
Hi Lee,
Would you say that Protestant (and other) theologians base their accepted doctrines more on the explicit words that the Bible uses, or is it mostly based a larger theological interpretation of those words and events?
For instance, think in terms of books and movies: very rarely will either one of those just come right out and say ‘I am about *THIS* subject.’ Far more often than not, we deduce the subject and themes of a book or movie by taking a step back, looking at the bigger picture, and trying to make sense of what we see before us. It seems to me that Protestants are fully aware that there are very few (if any) verses which spell out in very obvious and explicit language the doctrines they believe in, but rather they arrive to those conclusions because it’s the only way to make sense of the Biblical data. You may not have a verse that says ‘you are saved by faith alone,’ but ‘faith alone’ may be the only way to explain themes and events in the Bible. You may not have any one verse that says ‘penal substitution,’ but again, the doctrine of penal substitution is arrived at as the only plausible way to make sense of what we are reading.
I also recall you saying a number of times that if something were so fundamental, so essential to our salvation, wouldn’t the Bible articulate it in clear and simple language? Why would we have to go through all these sophisticated theological wrangling in order to figure it out for ourselves? That’s a fair point, but I believe a great (maybe even majority) of theologians don’t believe that it’s essential to know *how* you are saved, but rather that it’s sufficient to know and that you *are* saved. You don’t have to know *how* faith in Christ leads to your salvation, just that you *faith* that it does. In that regard, it’s not necessary for the Bible to explicitly lay out the way in which salvation is ultimately granted.
I’m not saying I accept these Protestant doctrines, but the point of all this is maybe that pointing out that there’s single verse that explicitly spells out their doctrines is one part of a *larger* hermeneutics by which we *assess* those doctrines, and is both too simplistic and insufficient unto itself as a means of saying they’re necessarily un-Biblical.
Now, I’ve seen you on more than just a few occasions actually interact with those interpretations outside of pointing out that Protestants can’t point to a single verse that explicitly says the things they believe in, but the latter seems to be more a dominant theme in your articles about their beliefs, and there’s enough thoughtfulness and intellectual muscle in their ranks to do them a bit more justice than ‘show me where it says Sole Fide/Penal Substitution etc.’
Hi Rami,
Yes, I’ve had Protestants make all of these arguments in response to my attacks on justification by faith alone and penal substitution as being unbiblical and false.
However, all of these arguments have major problems. I’ll take them in the order you present them.
First: The Bible is quite clear in many places what it’s about.
Just to pick one: salvation. In the Old Testament, salvation is mostly about physical life and death, prosperity and ruin. And the Old Testament is crystal clear in passage after passage that these are the stakes, and that if you do this you’ll receive life and prosperity, whereas if you do that you’ll receive ruin and death.
The New Testament is also very clear that if you repent from your sins and live a life love and service to God and the neighbor instead, you will be saved spiritually, and if you don’t you will be doomed spiritually.
I completely disagree that the Bible isn’t all that clear on what its theme is. Based on my extensive reading of the Bible, it is very clear, and there’s really no need for fancy human theologians to “figure it out” for people and provide some “larger theological interpretation.” Any person with basic reading comprehension can read the Bible and get a pretty good idea of what it’s about and what you have to do to be saved.
Even people who have had false, unbiblical doctrines hammered into their heads still commonly live according to what the Bible teaches, and are saved thereby. That’s how clear and powerful the Bible is. It can cut through all of our human confusion and fallacy, and still convey the message of eternal life to those who sincerely seek it.
Second: Protestant doctrine is very far from “the only way to make sense of the Biblical data.”
Swedenborg made far better sense of it while rejecting the entire edifice of Protestant doctrine. But it’s not just Swedenborg. For 1,500 years, Christians of all stripes made sense of the Bible without a single Protestant doctrine, because neither Protestantism nor its signature doctrines of justification by faith alone and penal substitution existed.
In short, the idea that justification by faith alone and penal substitution are “the only way to make sense of the biblical data” is not only wrong, but just plain silly. ‘Nuff said.
Third: No, it’s not necessary for people to understand the mechanism of salvation. There are many abstruse, non-common-sense doctrines about the mechanisms of salvation in Swedenborg’s theology that I believe are true, but than no one really needs to know in order to be saved.
However, people do need to know what they themselves must believe and do to be saved. And the Bible is quite clear on these subjects, without the slightest need for the doctrines of justification by faith alone and penal substitution.
In fact, those doctrines do real damage to the Bible’s teaching on what people must believe and do to be saved. They make it sound like believing is far more important than doing, when the Bible says the opposite. Faith and belief in the Bible are useful only in leading people to repent from their sins and to live a good life, which is what actually saves people. Penal substitution makes it sound like it doesn’t matter if we’re sinners because Christ paid for all of our sins anyway.
No matter how many times fancy theologians say that you still have to repent, not sin, and live a good life, what comes down to ordinary folks from their doctrine is, “If I believe the right thing, I’ll be saved.” And the corollary is, “Even if I sin, I’ll be saved.” There are millions of Protestants who think this way, despite all the fancy theologistics that fancy Protestant theologians engage in. So their doctrines confuse people’s minds and do damage to the plain, clear teachings of the Bible about what leads to eternal life.
Fourth: Any “larger hermeneutic” to justify justification by faith alone and penal substitution has a further basic problem. Not only is the Bible clear on what we must believe and do to be saved, but it states very clearly that the key Protestant doctrines of justification by faith alone and penal substitution are wrong.
I simply don’t see how the Bible could be any clearer than to say:
Now, if there were other passages in the Bible saying that we are justified by faith alone, there might be some room for doubt.
But there aren’t.
That is the only passage anywhere in the Bible that even mentions faith alone, and it specifically rejects the idea that we are justified by faith alone.
And as for penal substitution, there are multiple passages in the Bible saying that God is utterly opposed to the whole principle behind it. Here are some of them:
The Bible is very clear that God detests acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—which is exactly what the doctrine of penal substitution says God does. And it says that Lord will not acquit the guilty and will not leave the guilty unpunished—which is exactly what the doctrine of penal substitution says the Lord does. It says that God condemned Jesus, the only totally innocent person ever to live, to die on the cross, and that as a result of the death of this innocent man (who was God with us), acquitted every guilty sinner who believes that Jesus died instead of him or her.
So it’s simply not a matter of the Bible leaving things open for a “larger hermeneutic” to determine that justification by faith alone and penal substitution are correct doctrines. The Bible specifically and emphatically rejects them both.
Fifth: I used to think that there was “enough thoughtfulness and intellectual muscle” in Protestant ranks to make their doctrines at least sound plausible. And when I was young, I used to think that somewhere in the Epistles it said what they believe.
Then I engaged in several close readings of the Epistles, and found that no, it never says what they believe.
And then, more recently, I read most of two books by eminent contemporary Protestant theologians (Thomas Schreiner and R. C. Sproul) on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And I found them so weak, nonsensical, and downright foolish that I no longer believe Protestants have even a single theological leg to stand on, or even a single valid argument for their doctrine. If the best contemporary Protestant theologians are reduced to basically saying, “Justification by faith alone is true because it’s the fundamental doctrine of the church, so that’s what the Bible must mean and that’s what people must believe,” then they have lost all credibility with me.
I finally grew so frustrated with the circular logic, sloppy thinking, and just plain dumb (if you’ll excuse my French) readings of various Bible passages that I couldn’t take any more, and stopped reading halfway through the second book. I simply couldn’t force myself to wade through so much fallacious muck any longer.
If that’s the best that the best Protestant theologians have to offer (these books were recommended to me by a theologically knowledgeable Protestant), then it’s clear to me that the Protestant theologians’ “intellectual muscle” is so weak and flabby that they can’t even do a single bench press for their doctrine, let alone put really solid muscle behind it.
Really, I was shocked at how weak their arguments were. I expected at least to have to exercise some of my theological muscle refuting them. But their arguments were so shoddy and full of holes that it was more like poking a finger through a used tissue.
Finally, to sum up: There is absolutely no good reason to believe in justification by faith alone or penal substitution except that various Protestant theologians and many Protestant preachers insist that they’re true. And that’s not a good reason to believe something. The Bible not only doesn’t ever say these things. It explicitly rejects them. And there are far, far better “hermeneutics,” or in ordinary language, ways to understand the Bible, than these specious doctrines.
Further, these doctrines make God out to be a horrible, insane tyrant who sends billions of people to be eternally roasted in fire, even if they’re good, wonderful loving, caring people, just because they don’t believe the “right” doctrine, and who takes pleasure in seeing his own son brutally murdered as a “payment” for other people’s sins.
These doctrines are full of horrific blasphemy against the good name and character of God. Not only are they unbiblical and false, but they are the worst kind of stinking theological feces flung in the face of God. That’s why so many ex-Protestants are now atheists. They recognize those inhuman and insane doctrines for what they are, and they want no part of it.
So yes, I’ve heard all of these arguments. And they are all completely specious, wrong, and false.
There is absolutely no good reason to believe in either justification by faith alone or penal substitution, and there are massive reasons not to believe them. Really, they are outside the pale of reasonable theological discourse. They are a theological version of believing that the earth is flat:
Best line in the video: “It’s not okay to think that the earth is flat. This is not a viable argument.”
It’s not okay to think that we are justified or saved by faith alone, and not by the way we live.
It’s not okay to think that God considers us innocent because God punished Jesus instead of us for all of our sins.
These are not viable arguments.
I’ve always accepted sola fide, but struggled with passages—such as the one in James—that highlight the importance of works. I decided to re-read the New Testament specifically looking out for passages that supported either view. Even with the bias of my Lutheran upbringing, I have still found my belief in sola fide shaken, so I am really appreciative of your article which has introduced me to a whole side of soteriology I never even considered.
There’s just a few things I’m still not sure of, such as your refutal of the idea that Paul is saying that faith alone justifies us in Romans 3:28 and Ephesians 2:8-9. In one he says we are justified by faith, in the other he says we are saved through faith, in both he says without works. Even though he doesn’t literally say “we are justified/saved by faith alone” he says “by faith apart from works” and that our salvation is “not the result of works”. I suppose my question is that if it is not faith in conjunction with works that saves or justifies us, then what is it so that it is not faith alone?
I understand that you said Paul was only talking about works in relation to Mosaic law, but are not good works just works of the law still? You’re right that Paul often refers to circumcision when talking of the law, but he also mentions stealing, adultery, and idolatry in reference to the law, and we would consider refraining from those things to be good works.
One last little thing is that I noticed in the comments you wrote to someone that the Bible does not say, “God . . . imputes the righteousness of Christ into the believer.” I am curious to know how you interpret Romans 3:21-22 as I interpretted it to mean pretty much what you claim the Bible does not say.
Thanks again for the article and taking the time to read this comment way after this was published, sorry if my points don’t make sense or are repetitions of what you have already debunked.
God bless.
Hi Stirling,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your questions. And kudos for being willing to question what you have been taught, based on what you have read for yourself in the Bible. Questioning is the beginning of learning and knowledge.
I don’t much like the word “debunked.” It has a sense of mere intellectual debate, and pride in being right. But these are not mere intellectual issues. They are issues critical to our salvation and our eternal life. What I seek to do here is not to “debunk” anything, but to correct misunderstandings of the Bible and its teachings and stories, and offer a better understanding that is both more spiritual and more practical than much of what passes for “Christian” teaching today.
To that end, I’ve written and posted a number of articles about Martin Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone here. Rather than repeating many points I make in those articles, I’ll link you to some of the key ones. You’ll find links to additional articles and the end of each of these.
Now in answer to some of your specific questions and points that may not be covered fully in these articles:
First, though it is covered in the above articles, I’ll re-emphasize that Paul uses the word “works” in specific ways, with specific meanings. In the passages in which he says that we are justified by faith rather than by works, if he doesn’t specifically say “the works of the Law” (meaning the Law of Moses), he makes it clear in the context that that’s what he’s talking about. Yes, Paul mentions the Ten Commandments. But not in connection with saying that we are saved by faith and not works. When he makes these statements, his examples are not from the Ten Commandment. They are about “circumcision” vs. “uncircumcision,” and about “Jew” vs. “gentile.” This is how we know what he means by “law” in those passages. From the context.
Further, if he had wanted to equate “works” in these passages with “good works,” don’t you think that at least once he would have said that we are saved by faith without good works? But he never does. It’s always “works.” Never “good works.” That’s because, once again, he does not mean “good works” in those passages. He means the works that the Law of Moses requires Jews to observe.
To assure yourself that this is what Paul was talking about, please read the account of the “Council at Jerusalem” in Acts 15. That account puts Paul’s debate about justification by faith apart from the works of the Law in its historical and religious context.
So no, good works are not just works of the law. Remember, Paul was a Jew, and he wrote in a Jewish context. “Works of the Law” had a specific meaning in that context. And there is plenty of material in the Bible to clue us in to that meaning.
Second, about Romans 3:21–22 and imputation, it’s important to understand what “imputation” means.
In plain English, “imputation” means attributing to sinful people the righteousness and merit of Christ. It does not mean actually making people righteous.
The idea is that although we remain sinners, when we accept that Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins (something the Bible never says), the righteousness that Christ acquired through his sinless life is attributed to us, so that when God the Father looks at us, instead of seeing our sinful character, he sees Christ’s righteousness, in which we have been clothed through our faith.
Now here’s what Romans 3:21–22 says:
There isn’t anything here about Christ’s righteousness being imputed or attribute to us. It says that the righteousness of God has been disclosed and is attested by the Law and the Prophets and that it is for all who believe. It says nothing about that righteousness being “imputed to” or “attributed to” those who believe.
The Bible never says anything about God’s or Christ’s merit or righteousness being imputed to or attributed to people who have faith in God, or Christ. That idea was developed within Western Christianity starting a thousand years later.
For my response to one common objection, please see:
What about 2 Corinthians 5:21? Didn’t God make Christ to be sin for us?
What the Bible does say is that those who repent from their sins will have their sins forgiven, and they can then begin a new life of righteousness rather than sinfulness. In fact, this is the key practical message of the entire Bible, from the Genesis to Revelation.
However, Christians must understand that when we repent from our sins, receive forgiveness, and begin a new life of righteousness, we cannot take any credit for that whatsoever. The righteousness is not ours, but Christ’s in us. We know this is true because Jesus said:
That is how to read Romans 3:21–22 and similar passages. Those who believe in Jesus, repent from their sins as he and his Apostles commanded, and live a life of faithfulness to his teachings, will become righteous people not because they are righteous in themselves or from themselves, but because the righteousness of Christ has entered into them and changed them from the inside out. It is not mere “imputation.”
In other words, the righteousness is not merely attributed to us even though we are still sinners. No. We are no longer sinners, and no longer commit sin, because Christ is living within us, and we are living from Christ. He is the vine, we are the branches. (And no, we don’t have to be perfectly sinless to be righteous people. Only God is perfect. And God does not impose unreasonable standards upon us.)
Third, though it is not in specific response to one of your statements or questions:
Beyond saying that being observant Jews (“circumcised”) is not necessary for salvation, Paul was speaking of a great paradigm shift that was taking place from the ancient Jewish era to the then-new Christian era. Ancient Judaism was a religion of external obedience to law based on punishment and reward. This is all through the Old Testament. Christianity, by contrast, is a religion of internal faithfulness to the truth that comes to us from God. As Christ and his Apostles originally taught it, Christianity was to be a religion in which we do not follow God out of mere external obedience to a code of laws, but out of an internal understanding of, assent to, and commitment to spiritual and divine truth. This is why Jesus said:
This is the greater meaning of being saved by faith rather than by the Law. Christians are to rise above mere external obedience to behavioral laws, to an internal acceptance of and devotion to living by the truth, which is the real meaning of “faith.” Christians will still obey just laws, including the Ten Commandments. But it won’t be from fear of punishment or hope for reward. It will be because living according to the moral laws that God has given us, especially in the Ten Commandments, is an essential part of loving our neighbor as ourselves.
I hope these responses, and the linked articles, will give you some of the answers you are looking for. Leaving behind ideas and beliefs we have been taught for many years, and even from childhood, is not easy. That’s why so many people just remain with the church they were brought up in. It takes a devoted mind and a dedication to the truth to seek the truth and follow it wherever it leads.
If, as you read these articles and read the Bible for yourself, you have more thoughts or questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. And my the Lord be with you as you seek the truth.
Thanks a lot for your response, things are definitely making more sense. I’ll make sure to check out those other articles.
James 2:24 and Romans 3:28 use a different Greek word than Ephesians 2:8-9. The former use “justified” while the latter uses “grace” and “faith.” James 2:24 does not say “You can see that a person is saved by what they do and not by faith alone.” It uses the term “justified,” not “saved.” Yes, I read it carefully.
Do Baptists believe in Sola Fide, or is it just Protestants? Do all three Protestant branches believe in the doctrine or Sola Fide, or is it just Lutherans?
Hi World Questioner,
You’re comparing apples to oranges. The comparison is not between “justified” on the one hand and “grace” or “faith” on the other. The comparison is between “justified” on the one hand and “saved” on the other. Both James 2:24 and Romans 3:28 use the word “justified.” Ephesians 2:8–9 uses the word “saved.” Perhaps that’s what you meant to say. But I’m not sure what point you’re making.
Baptists are Protestants, so they do believe in justification by faith alone.
Which three branches of Protestantism are you referring to? The Reformed or Calvinist branch does believe in justification by faith alone.
Oops! I meant to say the former use “justified” while the latter uses “saved.”
Hi World Questioner,
And what’s your point about that?
What conclusion are you drawing from this?
James 2:24 doesn’t say we are saved by works and not by faith alone. It says we are “justified by works and not by faith alone.” So that would deny justification sola fide, but not salvation sola fide. Correct?
Does Romans 3:28 contradict James 2:24? I will ask GotQuestions that.
Hi World Questioner,
I don’t think that distinction will get you anywhere. Luther’s doctrine is justification by faith alone, not salvation by faith alone.
Further, though we can distinguish justification and salvation intellectually, in practice there is no salvation without justification, and no justification without salvation, so the distinction you’re making here amounts to a distinction without a difference.
If you ask GotQuestions that question, make sure to pop some popcorn before reading the answer. It is very entertaining to see solfidians attempt to squirm their way out of the one passage in the Bible that actually mentions faith alone! 😀
Baptists are not Protestants. https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/why_baptists_are_not_protestants.htm. I have to warn all that that site offends many people.
Hi World Questioner,
Interesting. Unfortunately, it doesn’t address the question of whether Baptists believe in faith alone.
Do Swedenborgians believe and practice the falsehood of self-righteousness? I know Seventh-Day Adventists do.
Hi World Questioner,
Well, that’s a silly question. Who would say, “We believe and practice the falsehood of self-righteousness?” I don’t think Seventh-Day Adventists would say “yes” to that question either. What, exactly, are you asking?
That wasn’t the right way to say it. Maybe Seventh-Day Adventists believe in self-righteousness, and practice that falsehood.
Hi World Questioner,
I suppose you could try asking a Seventh-Day Adventist that question.
I don’t see how 2 Corinthians 5:21 does not teach “penal substitution” as you call it. “For he (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (Christ).” That seems very clear in this verse.
Hi Ed,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your comment. In response, I have an entire article on the meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:21, which I invite you to read:
What about 2 Corinthians 5:21? Didn’t God make Christ to be sin for us?
Short version: The verse has almost always been mistranslated because the translators have not paid sufficient attention to the Old Testament word meanings and themes that Paul was drawing on in this passage.
But even if it weren’t mistranslated, it still doesn’t say that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. Even if it did say that God made Christ to be sin for us (which it doesn’t), it still doesn’t say that he paid the penalty for that sin. Just that he (somehow) “became” sin.
If God meant to tell us that Christ paid the penalty for our sins, then apparently God did a pretty bad job of it, because nobody saw it there for the first 1,500 years of Christianity. That idea didn’t occur to anyone until the Protestants came up with it in the sixteenth century.
Bottom line: The Bible never says that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. It’s just not there.
Actually, it does. Isaiah 53:4-6 says,
“Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.”
Hi Ed,
I don’t see “He paid the penalty for our sins” in there anywhere. Do you? Those words don’t occur in this passage. And none of the words that do occur mean that he paid the penalty for our sins.
It says that he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. We bear one another’s griefs and carry one another’s sorrows also. But we don’t pay the penalty for them. The person who has grief and sorrow still has grief and sorrow. We just ease the burden of their griefs and sorrows by sharing that burden with them.
Next, it says that even though we thought it was God who smote him, it was actually our transgressions that did so, not God. This in itself puts the lie to the idea that God punished Christ instead of punishing us.
But he was pierced for our transgressions, and crushed for our iniquities. Quite literally, a Roman soldier serving a corrupt and power-hungry human empire pierced him, and Jews and Romans conspired together to crush out his life through the crucifixion. This didn’t pay the penalty for their sins. The people who did this were still sinful. And as Jesus himself said, unless people repent, they will die in their sins (Luke 13:1–5).
Yes, his chastisement brought us peace, and his wounds healed us. But it still doesn’t say that he paid the penalty for our sins. If a frontiersman goes out of his cabin in the woods and confronts a marauding bear that is trying to break in, being wounded in the process of protecting his family, he isn’t paying the penalty for their sins. He is taking the punishment and sustaining the wounds that his family would otherwise sustain. If he dies from his wounds, but kills the bear in the process, then he has still saved his family’s lives. But he hasn’t paid the penalty for their sins.
Yes, the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was the one who went out from God to directly confront all of human iniquity and sin. It was all laid on his back, and he willingly bore the burden, defeating the power of the Devil over us when we had neither the will nor the ability to do so. This still didn’t pay the penalty for our sins. But it did save us from the power of evil and sin, if we are willing to avail ourselves of that salvation.
There simply isn’t one word in this passage, nor in the entire Bible, about Jesus paying the penalty for our sins. It just isn’t there. Penal substitution is a made-up human doctrine invented a millennium and a half after the last books of the Bible were written. And it is a false doctrine.
Please see:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Isaiah 54:5 denies the doctrine of penal substitution or satisfactory atonement, or whatever the latter is. Any other verses deny penal substitution or satisfactory atonement?
Hi World Questioner,
Do you mean Isaiah 54:5 or Isaiah 53:5? Or some other verse?
Oops! I meant Isaiah 53:5.
“But he was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities; Upon him was chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.”
Does that deny penal substitution?
Everything in that verse screams that Jesus died to pay the penalty that WE deserve. Read on to verse 6, and you can see that WE had a problem! And “The Lord hath laid UPON HIM the iniquity of us all.” I do not see any way to interpret this passage other than that Jesus paid the penalty for OUR sin.
Hi Ed,
You do not see any other way because Protestant dogma has been deeply ingrained in you mind, such that you cannot see anything else in the Bible. Take off your Protestant spectacles, and the passage will have a completely different meaning for you.
If this passage “screams” that Jesus died to pay the penalty that we deserve, why did no one see it there for 1,500 years? Why did so many millions of Christians for so many centuries never read it that way? Why was it not until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century that a minority of Christians (Protestants) began to interpret it that way?
Obviously it does not scream “penal substitution,” because no one read it that way until Protestantism came along. Either that, or God is a really bad author, and made the passage so hard to understand that no one understood it properly for the first millennium and a half of Christianity.
Once again, why does the Bible simply never say that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins? If that’s what God meant to tell us in the Bible, don’t you think he would have put it in there at least once, in clear and unambiguous terms, so that Christians would have believed this from the very beginning?
The simple fact of the matter is that the Bible does not say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.
Penal substitution is a human doctrine invented within Protestantism many centuries after the Bible was written.
I think YOU are the one who has had these ideas ingrained. There are many reasons to believe what I have set forth. For example, the whole OT sacrificial system prefigures the ultimate sacrifice that Jesus made. The book of Hebrews aptly points out that “the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sins.” But Christ made the perfect sacrifice, because He was sinless. This made Him qualified to pay the penalty for someone else’s sin. John says this in 1 John 2:2. “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” The word propitiation is used in several verses to explain what Jesus accomplished through His death on the cross. For example, in Romans 3:24-25 believers in Christ have been “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed.” These verses are a key point in Paul’s argument in the book of Romans and are really at the heart of the gospel message. These are just a few of the MANY passages in the Bible dealing with the substitutionary atonement provided by the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” as John put it in John 1.
Let’s not get into a debate.
Also, don’t rely on what Lee Woofenden says, or what Protestants or Evangelical Christians or fundamental baptists say for that matter. Read the Bible for yourself. And compare different translations, and look into the Hebrew and Greek context. Do some research on the Hebrew and Greek words for the translated English words in question, and do research on what the original Hebrew and Greek means. If Lordwilling, you might even hire Hebrew experts, although that’s unlikely, because only a small number of Bible scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) and Christian apologists hire Hebrew experts.
Do NOT twist the meanings of Bible verses to fit them with your beliefs.
P.S. ALWAYS consider the context of the verses. Never take any verse out of context.
How do you know no one saw it that way until the 1500s? I think YOU are the one who has had that idea ingrained into you. There are many other reasons to believe what I have set forth. For example, the whole OT sacrificial system pre-figured the ultimate atonement that would be provided by the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” as John put in in John 1. And God asking Abraham to sacrifice his only son, born miraculously in his old age, would make no sense at all, unless it was foretelling the “only begotten Son of God,” also miraculously born, who would provide the ultimate sacrifice. And Paul says, “and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” (Romans 3:24-25) And John says in 1 John 2:2, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” To propitiate means “to satisfy the wrath of God against sin.”
Hi Ed,
I know because the idea that Christ paid the penalty for our sins is not present in any creedal statements or any Christian writings and discourse prior to the Protestant Reformation.
The historical origins of the doctrine of penal substitution are well-known:
Substitutionary atonement, or more specifically, the satisfaction theory of atonement, itself developed within Western Christianity after the Great Schism between Eastern and Western Christianity in 1054 AD. Even the doctrinal foundation on which penal substitution rests was not laid until a millennium after the last books of the Bible were written.
And even today, no Christian churches outside of Protestantistm teach that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. This is how I know that you see it in the Bible because of the Protestant doctrinal lenses you are wearing. If you were not a Protestant, you would not believe that Christ paid the penalty for our sins, nor would you read Isaiah 53:4–5 as saying that he did.
These are simple facts. You can research these things for yourself if you like. No Christians before the Protestant Reformation believed that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.
And yes, the theme of Christ being the sacrifice for our sin is present throughout the Bible. But it does not have the meaning assigned to it within Western Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism).
The sin offerings of the Old Testament were not “penalties for sin,” as badly mistranslated in some of the more recent Protestant-produced translations of the Bible. Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament say that God’s wrath is appeased or turned away by the performance of sacrifices. Rather, they say that God’s wrath is turned away by repentance from sin.
The very word for “propitiation” in the Hebrew of the Old Testament means “a merciful covering over of sin.” This is reflected in your quote from Romans 3:24–25, where it says, “because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” Though the word “propitiation” can mean “satisfying wrath,” that’s not what it means in the Old Testament. And though the Greek word for “propitiation” can mean “satisfying wrath,” its meaning in the New Testament draws on its Old Testament roots, as is the case with so many words and themes in the New Testament.
For a more detailed presentation of the biblical meaning of “propitiation,” please read one of the articles I referred you to in my previous reply:
How did Swedenborg interpret 1 John 2:2: “He is the propitiation for our sins”?
The Old Testament sacrifices were not “appeasements” of God. No. They were feasts with God, which rekindled and reaffirmed the people’s relationship with God. It is similar to two warring kings who sign a peace treaty and celebrate it together with a big feast. The purpose of the sacrifices was to bring the people back into harmonious relationship with God. The sin offerings, in particular, were rituals representing the people’s recognition that they had sinned, and a recommitment to living according to God’s commandments. This was what brought the people together with God in harmonious relationship. This is the meaning of a number of passages in which God rejects the people’s sacrifices unless they repent from their sins and do good deeds instead, such as Isaiah 1:12–17 and Amos 5:21–24.
Christ’s sacrifice for our sin has the very same meaning. But a fuller presentation of this will have to wait for a future article.
The entire view of sacrifices that you have been taught is entirely unbiblical. It represents a complete misunderstanding of how sacrifices functioned in ancient Israelite society, and therefore what their meaning was among the early Christians.
Notice that the Lord’s celebration of the Last Supper with his disciples, in which he presented his body and blood as the sacrifice through which we have spiritual life, was a feast with his disciples. This is just one of many stories and statements in the New Testament showing how the earliest Christians, who were Jewish converts, viewed Christ as a sacrifice for our sin. It was in no way a payment of some supposed penalty. It was a shared meal that celebrated their relationship with Christ, and brought them into harmonious relationship with God.
It sounds like you need a re-read of the book of Hebrews. Also, why do you have so much confidence in the work of Swedenborg?
Hi Ed,
It sounds to me like you need to re-read the Bible. You still haven’t shown me a single passage where it says that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.
As for the book of Hebrews, it is a great support for Swedenborg’s view that much of the Bible is meant to be read metaphorically, not literally. And nowhere does it say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins, or that the sacrifices were all about placating an angry God.
Swedenborg does provide excellent help in properly understanding the Bible. But it’s not necessary to read Swedenborg to understand what the Bible says. The Bible’s own plain words are sufficient for people whose minds have not been contaminated by centuries of accretion of human doctrine.
And the Bible’s own plain words simply don’t say what you claim the Bible says. That’s why you have been unable to quote me even one passage from the Bible that says that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. It’s just not there.
Protestants claim to rely on Scripture alone. But that’s false, because none of the essential doctrines of Protestantism are stated anywhere in the Bible. Not a single one of them. See, for example:
“Christian Beliefs” that the Bible Doesn’t Teach
Meanwhile, I can easily quote you many passages from the Bible that state in very plain language the essential doctrines of my church. See, for example:
Christian Beliefs that the Bible Does Teach
It is sad to see that you place so much confidence in the writings of one fallible man, Emanuel Swedenborg. You seem only able to see the Bible through his eyes!
Hi Ed,
And it is sad to see you avoid the plain words of the Bible, seeking to distract my attention from the fact that you cannot quote even one verse from the Bible that states what you are claiming the Bible says. I have not asked you to believe anything Swedenborg says. I have only asked you to show me where the Bible teaches what you claim it does. So far, you have been unable to do so.
It is you, my friend, who are following a fallible man named Martin Luther instead of basing your beliefs on the plain words of the Bible.
Until you are able to quote me a passage that says that Christ paid the penalty for our sins, I will continue to believe what the Bible does say, not what it doesn’t say.
I have already given you many, but you re-interpret them NOT to say what they say, because they don’t use YOUR exact wording. But here is the list again: 1 John 2:2 says, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and* not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Romans 3:24-25, “and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom *God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” 1 John 4:10, “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.” 1 Peter 2:23-25, “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.” Isaiah 53: 4ff, “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But *he was pierced for our transgressions*; *he was crushed for our iniquities*; *upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace*, and *with his wounds we are healed*. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and *the Lord has laid on him* *the iniquity of us all*.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he (God) has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.”
Hi Ed,
You say:
Did I make up the doctrine of penal substitution? Did I coin the phrase, “Christ paid the penalty for our sins”? You are the one claiming the Bible teaches that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. How are those my words?
If you’re going to make a claim, you must show proof of your claim. You have once again quoted a number of Bible passages, none of which says that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.
The irony is that it’s you and your Protestant brothers and sisters who are “re-interpreting” these passages to make them say what you want them to say. And you are objecting because I insist on reading exactly what they say, and not adding words to them such as “pay” and “penalty.” Protestant doctrine cannot be supported without adding words to Scripture.
It could be argued that such words as “chastisement” in Isaiah 53:5 mean “penalty.” But it would be a weak argument, for reasons I will mention shortly. However, nowhere in the passages you have quoted does any synonym for “pay” appear. And there is certainly no phrase that is equivalent to, “he paid the penalty for our sins.” How am I “re-interpreting” the passages when I’m simply reading them, and noticing that they don’t say what you claim they do?
It is a simple fact that those passages do not say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.
But more than that, the entire legalistic framework in which that idea is embedded is wildly inappropriate to the message of the New Testament, and misses the point even of the Old Testament passages you have quoted.
From Wikipedia’s page on penal substitution again:
Though it is sometimes hidden behind fancy words such as “forensic theory,” the satisfaction theory of atonement, including its Protestant penal substitution variant, is an explicitly legal theory of atonement. It states that God’s justice, or wrath, requires punishment for sin, but that Christ’s death satisfied, or paid the penalty for, our sin, thereby granting legal pardon to those who accept that payment by believing in Christ.
Apparently Paul wasted his breath in telling us that we are not justified by the works of the law, but by faith. One thousand years after Paul taught that we are not under the law, but under grace through faith, Catholicism placed us back under the law by inventing and developing the satisfaction theory of atonement. One thousand five hundred years after Paul taught that we are not under the law, but under grace through faith, Protestantism also placed us back under the law through adopting and developing its own variant of the legal theory that Martin Luther carried over with him from his years as a Catholic monk.
This is what I mean when I say the claim that these passages mean that Christ paid the penalty for our sins is wildly inappropriate to the New Testament. It is diametrically opposed to the entire message of the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles, and the Book of Revelation. It backslides into the old legal view of salvation, when Christianity is not about legalisms, but about faithfulness to the Lord and his commandments, from an internal faith.
Like its Catholic mother, Protestantism has gone so far astray from the teachings of the Lord and his Apostles that it has adopted dogmas that nullify everything Paul taught, dragging us back into the old Jewish legalisms.
Even in the Old Testament, to read Isaiah 53 as if it is some sort of legal tract or contract between God and his people is to rob the passage of every last scrap of its spirit and power. It is to reduce a divine and human cry for an end to the injustice of this world into a piece of petty legal wrangling.
No, none of these passages say anything that comes anywhere near the dead, legalistic doctrine of penal substitution. Not only do the exact words “paid the penalty” not appear there, but the entire idea utterly misses the point of every one of the passages you have quoted.
If you wish to continue adding words to Scripture such as “pay,” “penalty,” “alone,” and so on to support the doctrines of Luther and Calvin, then you are perfectly free to do so.
As for me, I will continue to read and follow what the Bible itself says, without adding or subtracting words.
P.S. Your message contained some strange formatting that apparently caused it to run afoul of the WordPress spam filter. I fished it out of the spam folder and removed the spurious formatting and link that apparently triggered the filter. I did not change any of your words.
Apparently you can’t get it. You have to have enough inteligence to read what a passage of scripture says, and comprehend what it means, even if it doesn’t use your chosen words to say it! Propitiation carries the basic idea of appeasement or satisfaction, specifically toward God. Propitiation is a two-part act that involves appeasing the wrath of an offended person and being reconciled to him.
I don’t think we should debate Master Woofenden. I call him that if he has a master’s degree.
Debates sometime shave to close. Respect people’s choices of what they believe.
P.S. could Lee use silent treatment?
Hi Ed,
No, that is not the biblical meaning of “propitiation.”
The basic idea of the original Hebrew word from which the parallel word in the New Testament gets its meaning is “a merciful covering of sins.” It is not appeasement. This is a fundamental error in understanding many passages in the Bible that speak of “propitiation” in the English translations.
Once again, please see:
How did Swedenborg interpret 1 John 2:2: “He is the propitiation for our sins”?
Don’t avoid reading it because it has “Swedenborg” in the title. That’s just the question I was asked—and on another website, I might add. Swedenborg’s interpretation of “propitiation” draws directly on the original Hebrew words, and their influence on the meaning of the corresponding Greek words in the New Testament. Accordingly, the core of the linked article is the meaning of the Hebrew word for “propitiation” in the Old Testament. You say you have taken some Hebrew and enjoy it. I therefore highly recommend that you read that article.
Unlike Luther, who added words to Scripture to make it agree with his doctrine, and sidelined books that didn’t agree with his doctrine, Swedenborg believed that the Word of God is inspired right down to the very words, and even to the very letters in places, and was therefore a real stickler for reading the exact words of scripture, and basing his doctrine on that. This is precisely what he did in determining what the Bible means when it uses the words that are translated into English as “propitiation.”
Assigning meaning to words based on the cultures of much later times is a major cause of misunderstanding of the meaning of the Bible. The Bible must be understood within the context of the cultures in which it was written, not in the context of eleventh-century or sixteenth-century European culture, as happened when the satisfaction theory of atonement and its penal substitution variant were developed.
Bottom line, biblically, “propitiation” does not mean “appeasement or satisfaction.” That is an anachronistic reading of the Bible based on Medieval European culture.
Then you don’t think the blood of Christ was any better than the blood of bulls and goats? The writer of Hebrews says animal sacrifices (though they did cover over the sins) were never able to take away the sins. Yet just one sacrifice of Jesus Christ’s own flesh was able to take away permanently the sins of those who put their faith in Him. See Hebrews 10. Christ’s sacrifice apparently was more pleasing to God than all of the OT sacrifices put together!
Hi Ed,
Let’s look at Hebrews 10. It opens by saying:
This is a somewhat more poetic version of exactly what Swedenborg wrote about the sacrifices: that they were symbolic of deeper spiritual realities. And indeed, Christ was not literally sacrificed on an altar. He was crucified. A crucifixion is not a sacrifice in the literal sense of that word. Sacrifices happen on altars, not on crosses. Clearly, then, the biblical portrayal of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb is not literal, but metaphorical and spiritual.
Then, within a quote from Psalm 40 about sacrifices not being required or desired by God, comes this line:
Not “I have come to be sacrificed to appease your wrath, O God,” but “I have come to do your will, O God.” God has always wanted us to do his will. Sacrifices were always secondary to that. And what Christ did primarily was to do God’s will. Even his (metaphorical) sacrifice was secondary to that. As the Prophets make abundantly clear, offering sacrifices without doing God’s will is ineffectual and even obnoxious to God. Hebrews goes on to make this very point:
The “first order” is worship through sacrifices and offerings. The “second order” is to do God’s will.
Further, Christ’s sacrifice doesn’t do away with all sin:
It is only “those who are sanctified” who are “perfected” (which should probably be translated “made complete”). And we are sanctified by the truth (John 17:17). Not by merely knowing the truth, but by “doing the truth” (John 3:21, 1 John 1:6, KJV), which means living according to the truth.
Hebrews sums it all up by saying:
Not, “Because of the merit of Christ I will consider them sinless even though they are sinners,” as in satisfaction theory and its penal substitution variant. That is absolutely false and unbiblical. Rather, “I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds,” and “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Not because Christ’s merit has covered over their sins, but because faithfulness to Christ has put the law in their hearts and minds, and they live according to it from an internal devotion to it. This is why Paul says:
Though the final quote is from Jeremiah 31:34, these closing lines of the sequence in Hebrews also allude to Ezekiel 18, which says the same thing about those who cease sinning and do good instead:
It is not through mere intellectual faith in Christ, but through faithfulness to Christ in believing in him and following his commandments that our sins are taken away. See:
Faith Alone Is Not Faith
The picture painted of Jesus’ sacrifice by Hebrews 10:1–18 is far from the picture painted by Catholicism and its Protestant offspring. It is not one of Christ’s blood appeasing a God whose justice has been offended or whose wrath has been kindled. No, it is a picture of Christ’s sacrifice bringing us into harmonious relationship with God through our faithfulness to Christ and his commandments, which means repenting from sin and practicing love for the neighbor through acts of loving service to our neighbor. This is the message of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31–46.
This sequence in Hebrews also makes it clear, as do many other passages, that it is not the literal, physical blood of Christ’s physical, earthly body that saves us from sin. Once again, it opens by saying:
It is not the “shadow” but the “true form of those realities” that saves us. Not the literal, physical blood, which is a mere shadow, but the true form of Christ’s blood, which is spiritual and divine, not physical. The idea that God saw the physical blood of Christ and was placated for the sins of humankind is a blasphemous smear on the loving, compassionate, and merciful character of God. That would be the attitude of an insane tyrant, not the attitude of a God of love.
So what was Christ’s sacrifice? That is too vast a topic to cover in a comment. But one thing it was not is “appeasement of God.” I have already pointed out that the Old Testament sacrifices were not “penalties for sin” (that is an abysmal mistranslation of the Hebrew word for “sin offering”), nor was their function to appease an angry God. Rather, they were feasts with God.
Jesus made this connection as clearly as possible in a narrative form when he celebrated the Last Supper with his disciples. Jesus said:
The Passover lamb was a sacrificial lamb. And Jesus ate it with his disciples in the most famous feast of all time—one that is celebrated by hundreds of millions of Christians to this day. This was the feast at which Jesus offered his flesh and blood for his disciples to eat and drink. But it was not literal flesh and blood. It was metaphorical flesh and blood, and it took the form of bread and wine.
Now, unless you agree with the Catholics that the bread and wine become Jesus actual flesh and blood (a silly and superstitious idea), Jesus here was telling us that it is not his literal flesh and blood that saves us. He demonstrated the same thing in John 6, where many ceased to follow him because he insisted that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, and those who abandoned him could not understand this spiritually, but only physically, which would have meant Jesus was requiring them to be cannibals.
In that sequence in John, Jesus is demonstrating once again that the sacrifice, and the flesh and blood, are spiritual, not physical. That is why he says:
How much clearer could he have been, without becoming a theological pedant, that his sacrifice, and his flesh and blood, are meant to be understood spiritually, not physically?
For more on this, please see:
Eat My Flesh, Drink My Blood
There is much more that could be said about this. But the TL;DR version is:
Yes, Christ’s blood does take away sins. It doesn’t “appease the Father.” That is unbiblical and false. It doesn’t plaster over our sins with Christ’s merit. That is also unbiblical and false. Rather, when we take Christ’s spiritual flesh and blood—which is God’s love and truth—into ourselves, it places the divine law in our heart and mind, and we “cease to do evil, and learn to do good,” in the words of Isaiah 1:16–17. That, and not some ritual appeasement of God (which is totally unbiblical) is how Christ’s sacrifice and Christ’s blood takes away our sin.
Do you believe that you have achieved sinless perfection?
Hi Ed,
Of course not.
The very question points to yet another unbiblical Protestant fallacy, covered in these two articles:
The idea that we must have achieved sinless perfection in order to satisfy God so that God will not send us to hell is yet another Protestant teaching that—just like all the rest—the Bible simply never says.
The entire edifice of Catholic and Protestant doctrine is built upon, and out of, doctrines that are never stated anywhere in the Bible. They were all made up by human beings over the course of so-called “Christian” history—which is really the history of the destruction of Christianity through the rejection and corruption of all the teachings of Christ and his apostles.
The doctrine of justification by faith alone itself is built upon the rejection of the book of James and of the one verse in the Bible that mentions faith alone:
Ever since their leader, Martin Luther, rejected what the Bible says about faith alone and established his own anti-biblical doctrine in its place, his followers have been pumping out an endless stream of corruptions of the plain and simple teaching contained in this verse and its context, attempting to avoid the Bible’s clear and forceful rejection of their key distinguishing doctrine.
But the Bible still rejects that teaching in words as plain as day. Only years of theological indoctrination can blind people’s eyes so much that they can’t read, understand, and accept the Bible’s plain teaching about faith alone.
You, my friend, have received years of theological indoctrination. I urge you to throw off that indoctrination, and base your beliefs on the plain words of the Bible itself, not on human doctrines cooked up over the centuries.
Hi Ed,
And once again, “Christ paid the penalty for our sins” is not “my chosen words.” I don’t even believe that doctrine. Why would I choose words for it? I am simply using the words that Protestants use to describe their own doctrine.
Do you or do you not believe that Christ paid the penalty for our sins?
And if you do, why are you objecting to my using using the precise words that Protestants use to articulate that doctrine? Why are you objecting to my asking you to show me where the Bible says this?
Doesn’t it give you any pause at all that you cannot state that doctrine in the Bible’s own words? That you have to add words such as “pay” and “penalty” that the Bible does not use?
It is an earmark of false doctrine that it must add words to scripture or subtract words from scripture in order to be stated properly. True doctrine—especially essential doctrine—can be stated in the Bible’s own words, without adding words to them or subtracting words from them.
But none of the essential doctrines of Western Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism) can be stated in the Bible’s own words. They all require extra-biblical words and ideas to be stated properly. Doesn’t it give you any pause at all that your doctrines cannot be stated in the Bible’s own words?
Don’t follow either Swedenborg or Martin Luther. Read the Bible for yourself. Compare what Lee Woofenden says to what the Bible says. As I said, do NOT twist the meaning of any Bible verse. I don’t think you are one that can hire Hebrew experts, but you could look at sources made by organizations that hire Hebrew experts.
I love Hebrew. I had 3 years of it in college and seminary. So feel free to enlighten me on the Hebrew. I also have 3 Hebrew lexicons. I do believe that the translators did a good job on the ESV Bible. I also had 3 years of Koine Greek, so you can fill me in on how the translators did on the NT. I agree with you that one should begin with the Bible itself. I had a course in Biblical Hermeneutics, so I am prepared to make an honest effort at getting the translation right and complete. By the way, Martin Luther was no dummy. Among his many accomplishments, he translated the entire Bible into German for the first time. I believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. One doesn’t need to be a scholar to understand what it means. We have access to many good translations. Average people can comprehend it if they try.
Didn’t he question the canonicity of James, Revelation, and two other books, because he deemed them to contradict his doctrine of justification by faith alone (Sola Fide)?
Then Luther’s canon would only have 62 books, not 66. Is that correct, Lee?
Hi World Questioner,
That matter is, of course, debated. But it is certain that Martin Luther did not like the Epistle of James, calling it an “epistle of straw.” From the Wikipedia page on the Epistle of James:
Note 88 reads:
I suspect that Luther would have removed those four books from the Bible if he thought he could get away with it.
Not only did Luther think that books of the Bible that he recognized didn’t agree with his newly invented doctrine of justification by faith alone should be de-emphasized and ignored to the extent that they disagree with his doctrine, but he even added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 in his German translation of the Bible, making excuses that “German idiom required it.” What hogwash!
It is true that Luther was no dummy. Unlike his followers, who spew out millions of words in an attempt to explain away the one passage in the entire Bible that actually mentions faith alone—and explicitly rejects it—Luther saw very clearly that James rejected justification by faith alone. Yet instead of rejecting justification by faith alone, Luther rejected the book of James, and three other books of the Bible along with it.
Apparently the Bible is to be measured according to Luther’s teachings, not Luther’s teachings according to the Bible. At least, that’s how his followers continue to act to this very day, rejecting even Jesus’ own words if they do not support Luther’s dogma.
Hi Ed,
You say:
And yet, it seems that it required a course in Biblical Hermeneutics for you to be able to make the Bible say what you want it to say, even though it never actually does say that.
I agree that average people can comprehend the Bible if they try. And I don’t think it requires courses in Biblical Hermeneutics. It just requires reading what the Bible says, and understanding its words. When it comes to the basics required for our salvation, no interpretation is necessary.
Yet Protestants keep adding words to the Bible that aren’t there. Especially the word “alone.” Protestants add “alone” to everything!
The Bible adds “alone” in only one passage:
That’s right. The only time the Bible adds “alone” is to explicitly reject it.
Yet Protestants add “alone” to “faith,” they add “alone” to “grace,” they add “alone” to “Scripture,” and on and on.
Drop the “alone” that Scripture rejects, and maybe you will begin to understand the Bible despite your course in Biblical Heremneutics. You will also see that it is not necessary to add the words “pay” and “penalty” to the Bible.
Adding all these words to the Bible only confuses its meaning. That is why you are unable to understand anything it says, but keep adding words to it to make it say what you want it to say. Luther set the example of adding words to Scripture, and you continue to follow Luther’s example.
I agree with you on all those things. My concern for you is that you want to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Everyone is fallible, and that includes Luther, Calvin, Swedenborg, and you and me. But hopefully, you will not reject everything someone says, because you believe they were wrong about some things. Do you think YOU could be wrong about some things?
Hi Ed,
I can be wrong about things. I have been wrong about things, and have had to revise my thinking. Swedenborg also is not infallible, as you can see in the section headed “1. Swedenborg’s writings are not unquestionable, inerrant truth” in this article:
Do the Teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg take Precedence over the Bible?
However, the errors in Swedenborg’s writings are mostly rather unimportant and doctrinally insignificant ones based on the limits of the scientific and historical knowledge of his day. When it comes to his doctrinal statements, he was meticulous in documenting them based on the plain, literal meaning of scripture, pursuant to his principle that “The Church’s doctrine must be drawn from the literal sense of the Word and supported by it” (Doctrine of the Sacred Scripture #50, True Christian Religion #225).
Luther, meanwhile, felt free to add words to scripture to make it conform to his own doctrines, and felt perfectly justified in calling James’s letter “an epistle of straw” because it rejected his own newly hatched doctrine of justification by faith alone. The approaches of Swedenborg and Luther to scripture could hardly be more different.
As a result, Luther made major errors in his doctrinal statements, because he felt free to ignore and sideline scripture when it did not agree with own doctrine. Specifically, he made his new doctrine of justification by faith alone “the doctrine on which the church stands or falls,” even though it is specifically rejected in the plainest terms possible in the one and only passage in the entire Bible that even mentions faith alone:
I’m sure Luther said many good and beautiful things. But in contrast to Swedenborg, who was highly vigilant not to add or subtract a single word to or from scripture, Luther felt free to play fast-and-loose with the biblical text, altering it where it didn’t support his own doctrines. He literally added the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28!
Further, as a result of his new unbiblical and false doctrine, he believed that Paul and James contradicted one another—which is a common belief among Protestant scholars to this day.
But Paul and James do not contradict one another. That mistaken idea is based on not understanding what Paul was talking about in Romans 3:28 and other passages where he speaks of being justified by faith apart from the works of the Law. Paul never even used the term “faith alone.” The idea that faith alone is Paul’s central teaching is therefore ludicrous.
When Paul is understood correctly, he entirely agrees with James that a person is not justified by faith alone.
Notice that Paul never says that we are not justified by good works, as many Protestants say. Only by “works.” There’s a very good reason for that. Although Paul did like to use clever turns-of-phrase, he was not a sloppy writer. He was very precise with his words. If he had meant that we are justified by faith alone, he would have said so. If he had meant that we are not justified by good works, he would have said so. But he never said either of those things. Once again, there’s a very good reason for that.
For what Paul actually did mean, please see:
Faith Alone Does Not Save . . . No Matter How Many Times Protestants Say It Does
See also the first three articles linked from the end of this one. And there are several more I could refer you to.
Hi Ed,
To add to my previous reply:
In general, “average people” understand the Bible much better than the scholars, because they have not had their heads filled full of two thousand years worth of accretion of human doctrines, creeds, and dogmas. For the most part, only the clergy, who have been educated in dogmatics, have any real understanding of all these “mysteries of faith” that are stated nowhere in the Bible.
Ordinary people understand, when they read the Bible, that they must believe in Jesus, repent from their sins, and live a good life if they want to be saved. And those who do so are saved—despite all the fancy doctrines that their fancy preachers have had ingrained in their heads through way too many years of bad schooling.
You were misinterpreting Isaiah 53:4. It doesn’t say that Jesus was stricken and smitten by God. It says that people DEEMED Jesus stricken and smitten by God. Isaiah 53:5 is in contrast to 53:4.
Hi World Questioner,
In what way do you think this verse denies penal substitution?
Actually, I mean it denies the doctrine that Jesus experienced God’s wrath. As I said, it’s in contrast to the previous verse.
Hi Word Questioner,
I do agree with that. I’m not aware of any passage in the Bible that says that Jesus experienced God’s wrath.
What do you think of https://www.monergism.com/history-justification-times-fathers? Is that accurate?