Here is another dialogue on the topic of whether Romans 4 teaches Sola Fide in response to my article on the topic:

https://watchmencouncil.com/2024/01/07/clement-abraham-and-sola-fide/

Tyler:

Because Christ instituted it [Baptism]. And said it was necessary to go along with faith to receive the Holy Spirit. Now when it comes to justification, we of course believe it’s a process, seeing as the possibility of falling away is a reality, justification must be maintained

We would argue that justification has 3 layers to it, Initial, continual, and final. Initial is final. It cannot be undone. But the continual process of growing in justification can be lost through active mortal sin and free will. Final would be entire sanctification.

With baptism, this gives you the Holy Spirit and makes your faith complete but not TOTALLY complete, seeing as the process of salvation is to begin from this standard onward. We get this from not only scripture but tradition. Romans 4 teaches initial justification.

But Protestants err when they assume justification is a one time deal. When scripture states otherwise. Not many people can read Paul properly, which I personally believe is the main culprit behind Protestantism.

“Was Abraham baptized?“

He was circumcised, and this event was essentially baptism for the old covenant adherents.

Baptism replaces circumcision on the basis that it’s both a sign of the new covenant and it’s a literal transformative experience.

Abraham still needed works to back up his faith.

He still needed to obey God by fleeing his homeland and offer Isaac up on the altar.

How then, can one claim faith and yet not do the thing which their faith demands of them?

The answer is that they are both necessary. Faith alone cannot suffice. But initially? Sure.

Also, if his faith saved him right then and there, there’d be no need for him to continue to obey God.
Seeing as he’s secured.

I know some Lutherans do not hold to eternal security, however the point remains. The theology is flawed.

TheSire:

Firstly, there’s a contradiction in your statements. You strongly assert the possibility of falling away, contradicting Sola Fide:

“Because Christ instituted it [Baptism]. And said it was necessary to go along with faith to receive the Holy Spirit. Now when it comes to justification, we of course believe it’s a process, seeing as the possibility of falling away is a reality, justification must be maintained“

Then, you mention some Lutherans don’t hold to eternal security, implying Sola Fide’s inconsistency:

“I know some Lutherans do not hold to eternal security, however the point remains. The theology is flawed.“

This brings up an inconsistency regarding Sola Fide in relation to apostasy. Does Sola Fide disprove apostasy, or is the Lutheran position legitimate?

Secondly, your interpretation of Romans 4 presents an issue.

“Romans 4 teaches initial justification.“

If Romans 4 teaches initial justification, it leaves room for Judaizers’ argument for ongoing or final justification needing additional conditions like circumcision. This implies the Judaizers were never refuted, or that circumcision might still be required for justification.

Thirdly, your theological coherence is in question:

“He was circumcised, and this event was essentially baptism for the old covenant adherents.
Baptism replaces circumcision on the basis that it’s both a sign of the new covenant and it’s a literal transformative experience.“

1. Circumcision and Justification: When considering Paul’s argument in Romans 4, it becomes evident that circumcision wasn’t the primary means of justification in the Old Testament. According to verses 9-12, Abraham was justified by faith before being circumcised. This signifies that circumcision was not the initiator of Abraham’s justification but rather a subsequent sign of his faith. Hence, Paul’s stance asserts that circumcision didn’t serve as the instrument for Abraham’s initial justification but rather a visible symbol following it.
2. Continuity of Justification: Reflecting on verses 22-25 of Romans 4, Paul emphasizes the ongoing nature of justification through faith. He highlights that Abraham’s faith was counted as righteousness, establishing him as an exemplary figure for all believers. This stresses the consistent essence of justification grounded in faith, regardless of the ceremonial act of circumcision. Therefore, Paul’s argument underscores faith as the fundamental component of justification, superseding the significance of circumcision or any specific ritualistic practice.

Lastly:

“Also, if his faith saved him right then and there, there’d be no need for him to continue to obey God.
Seeing as he’s secured.“

Additionally, your mention of obedience and secured salvation reflects Romans 6, which confronts the idea of sinning despite grace. This alignment doesn’t portray Protestantism as more Pauline than Catholic. It rather suggests Paul’s possible Protestant leanings. Moreover, the concept of being justified yet required to strive for holiness aligns with most Protestants’ view of regeneration and progressive sanctification.

The issue is this only makes Protestants seem to be more like Paul because this charge is brought against Paul in Romans 6:

What should we say, then? Should we go on sinning so that grace may increase? ² Of course not! How can we who died as far as sin is concerned go on living in it?

The focus on righteous living and obedience, echoing the teachings in Romans 6, appears to align more with the Protestant interpretation of Paul’s doctrine on justification and holy living.

The main issue here revolves around the original accusation directed at the Catholic view of justification. If this perspective were entirely in line with Biblical understanding and universally accepted as Paul’s teachings, the charge of antinomianism wouldn’t naturally arise. Antinomianism, the belief that grace permits continual sin, doesn’t seem to be a direct concern within the framework of Catholic justification.