IF MAN is saved by “faith alone,” then a Satanist should go to heaven.

The Satanist believes. He does not deny God’s existence.

— Comments —

ML writes:

In your entry “A Simple Argument against ‘Sola Fide,’ you wrote;

“If man is saved by “faith alone,” then a Satanist should go to heaven.The Satanist believes. He does not deny God’s existence.”

This is a misrepresentation of the evangelical position. I’m not a huge fan of Martin Luther, and I think the Reformation had its flaws (for reasons quite different from those that Catholics would give), but I recognize that sola fide is a slogan that can easily be taken out of context. No serious preacher who holds to sola fide actually believes that saving faith is analogous to mere “belief” or intellectual assent. They would not believe that Satanists can be saved (as Satanists), for the simple reason they continue in their Satanism.

Christian faith is a large concept, and one that encompasses a number of things, including repentance* – that is, a turning from sin and self to Christ for salvation (with all that entails, e.g. a new life, lived for the glory of God, which will involve a struggle against indwelling sin, but also the power to overcome things that would be impossible apart from conversion and reception of the Holy Spirit – you may disagree, but I am presenting the commonly-held, conservative evangelical position).

Where there is no repentance, there is no true faith, because faith is exercised in accordance with a godly fear and persuasion that is more than mere intellectual assent (which may be true of the Satanist who “believes” in a God he is angry with to the point of outright rejection).

When Paul told the Philippian jailer, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31), the context fills in the gaps for us:

1)     The jailer is overcome with terror at an evidence of God’s displeasure (an earthquake);

2)     He discovers that God was also of a mind to extend grace to him (i.e., he hears Paul call to him not to kill himself);

3)     He cries out an earnest question: “What must I do to be saved?” (indicating his willingness to “do” something, anything, in order to merit God’s salvation);

4)     He receives an answer that indicates there is nothing to “do;” simply believe – turn and trust God, agree with what Paul and Silas have been preaching and are now singing about in a damp prison; agree with the sufficiency of Christ’s work on the cross. Not “believe” as a Satanist; believe as a Christian.

5)     And sure enough, we find the evidence of this kind of belief in his subsequent baptism, in his testimony to his household and their subsequent baptism (implying initial faith) and in his kind treatment of Paul and Silas.

Luther (or whoever first coined the term sola fide) obviously had in mind the writings of Paul, particularly in Romans and Galatians. To take just one passage, consider Galatians 2:16:

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

As with many passages in scripture, there is a primary interpretation (based on the immediate context) and a secondary, but larger, application. In its primary context, “the works of the law” refers, quite literally, to the Mosaic law, which features prominently in the great Jewish-Gentile controversy in the early church. Paul is saying here and elsewhere that mere slavish, ceremonial obedience to this law is of no value in terms of salvation, justification, call it what you will. There has to be an undercurrent of acknowledgement in God and a genuine (if simple) trust in Him. Thus Paul writes elsewhere, “Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (Galatians 3:6). Abraham lived prior to the giving of the law at Sinai, and we read of absolutely nothing ceremonial in his life, save for building an altar. His justification – his righteous standing before God – was on the basis of faith (which he acted upon, as per James’s statement that he was justified by works. This is not a contradiction of Paul, but a rounding out of Paul’s concept of justification by faith. Faith must be accompanied by works – not for salvation, but as a proof of genuine conversion.)

But, as I’ve indicated, this has a wider, even universal application to people who have nothing to do with the Mosaic law. “The deeds of the law” can be understood as adherence to any social code – or even set of biblical ethics or commandments – is of no saving value apart from faith. Good deeds cannot justify a person. Being helpful and kind is good, noble and right, but of no value for salvation in God’s sight apart from faith. “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags,” says Paul, quoting Isaiah.

Of course, saving faith is intimately bound up with the object of that faith: Christ. This is a little different than what you said concerning the Satanist who believes “in God.” No man comes to God apart from Christ (John 14:6). So faith must be not only in God, but in the person and work of Christ. Hence the Muslim cannot be saved by adherence to his religion, however sincere, and the same goes for all religious adherents. I expect many readers will not approve of the narrowness of this comment, but it is based on a direct quotation from Christ himself, and it should not be controversial for professing Christians.

I know that there is a lot of shallowness in contemporary evangelical church, and much that is not genuine, but salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8) is a foundational Christian concept. There will always be charges of antinomianism levelled against those who adhere to this. Let the accusations fly – often they’re complete misrepresentations of what is actually being preached. The same man who preached so forcefully on the sufficiency of saving faith also wrote:

“Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!” (Romans 6:1-2).

*Repentance is not penance, but that’s a conversation I cannot get into now.

Laura writes:

I realize that Protestants do not think that Satanists are saved. (There are Satanists, by the way, who believe strongly in the reality of Christ.) It never occurs to anyone who considers himself a Christian that a Satanist might be saved and yet many do believe in something very close to sola fide because they speak of themselves as having been “saved.” Thus my rhetorical challenge to this idea.

Obviously, most also believe in the concept of sin. Through the internal assent to Christ, they become recipients of grace and thus are able to fulfill the moral law.  As you say, they believe that an understanding of what sin is and an aversion to it comes through the act of faith and through grace, which is what the Catholic believes too, but he, the Catholic, also believes in the necessity of one’s active participation in the sacramental life of grace and the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church referred to so often in the Bible. Christ spoke of the seed that falls on fallow ground. This is faith without the necessary soil and nourishment to maintain it. It is presumption to think we can maintain faith without the active life of grace. Holiness is necessary for salvation. Holiness is that combination of faith, grace and works. For the Catholic, faith is like a candle, with one’s own active, sacramental participation in the life of grace keeping the flame of faith alive, just as the wax is necessary to keep the light burning. For the Protestant, one has saving faith and thus one is enlightened, which explains the euphoria some Protestants exhibit. What that enlightenment entails, what sin exactly is, is often ambiguous and open to interpretation.

You wrote:

4) He receives an answer that indicates there is nothing to “do;” simply believe – turn and trust God, agree with what Paul and Silas have been preaching and are now singing about in a damp prison; agree with the sufficiency of Christ’s work on the cross. Not “believe” as a Satanist; believe as a Christian.

The Bible repeatedly speaks of works by the believer and following the will of God. A couple of examples:

James 2:24: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

Matthew 7:21-23: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Hebrews 5:9: “And being made perfect, he [Jesus] became the author of eternal salvation unto all that obey him.”

Matthew 13:41-42 “The Son of man shall come in glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.”

Laura adds:

Paul states that it is possible to have faith and yet to sin, denying the idea that one is given sufficient grace by the act of faith.

Hebrews 10:26-27: “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.”

Mary writes:

ML wrote: “…agree with the sufficiency of Christ’s work on the cross.”

This statement seems to promote the idea that Christ did all the work for our salvation on the Cross so we have none left to do ourselves – that is, that the work of salvation on earth is finished because He did it for us, in our stead, as a gift – and that we can relax and enjoy the fruits of His work as long as we profess our faith in Him. And I could see someone thinking that this is the superior position: it appears to point to a greater faith in Christ by seeming to require a greater confidence in Him. But the Greatest Act of Love in history was not effort expended to keep us from having to do our own work, but rather was an act of propitiation for our sins meant to appease God and in turn stand as an inspiration to us forevermore to continue His work here on earth, to imitate Him, to follow His Way, all the way to heaven.

As Catholics we don’t look at Christ on the Cross and feel any sort of relief in the sense of a relaxation of duty; in viewing the body of Christ on the Cross we may supplicate Him, commonly feel sorrow, offer thanksgiving and ultimately are moved to act in His name, with Him and for Him; to offer more prayer, to live a life of greater charity (love), make acts of reparation, etc. But we feel no relief in the sense of duty on our own account except through the confidence of faith and belief in Him; that is inexpressibly comforting. But it is a starting point rather than a stopping point: we are compelled by it. Anything else would feel presumptuous. In a nutshell: I love You. I’m profoundly sorry. Thank You for suffering for my sins. How can I make it up to You?

It seems obvious to me that the Protestant focus on the risen Christ, or on the Cross without the corpus – as opposed to the Crucifixion – is at the root of these different views. Catholics meditate fully on Christ’s passion every week, as the Mass is the re-enactment of Calvary (it is also central to the recitation of the rosary). Christ’s Passion was a gift for us from God designed to touch our human hearts and souls for all eternity, to help us achieve everlasting life in heaven.

Drew writes:

You said that Satanists have faith simply because they believe in the existence of God. But I think that you have a great misunderstanding of what salvation by faith alone entails. Believing in the existence of God is insufficient. Instead, a person must specifically believe that Jesus is the Christ. To be the Christ means that he is the savior, who is willing and able to grant everlasting life to each individual believer. Satanists do not believe this truth.

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou are the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

Frankly, Catholics do not believe this truth, either. Everlasting life is by definition irrevocable.

Laura writes:

Drew writes:

A person gains everlasting life by simple faith, but also gains rewards based on works done in faith. Everlasting life is not a reward. Everlasting life is a gift. There are other things that are rewards. Catholicism largely nullifies the truth about rewards, by teaching that a lifetime of good works can become null and void at the last minute based on a single “mortal sin,” thereby destroying the rewards. Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount that people should value the rewards in heaven because they are permanent and safe. But Catholicism teaches people to doubt the permanence of rewards.

“For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.” Mark 9:41

“Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” 1 Corinthians 3:12-13. Obviously, gold doesn’t burn.

And finally, I do not know of any Satanists who believe in salvation by faith alone. I certainly do not know of any Satanists who would claim that Jesus has saved them personally, which is what I said a person must believe.

 Laura writes:

 Everlasting happiness is not a reward. It is not deserved. It is a gift freely given that God bestows on the just.

Obviously, it is possible for a person who was faithful to commit a mortal sin at the end (think of Judas) but the Church teaches through the examples of the saints that sanctification and participation in the life of grace change the soul and the will. We don’t ever lose free will, and to say that we could not throw it all away at the end would be to say that we have no free will. But for the saints it is almost impossible. Friendship with God makes mortal sin, which involves the full intention to commit evil, difficult.

By the way, I did not mean to equate Satanists with those who believe in sola fide.

You write:

There are other things that are rewards.

So if a person shows no signs of rewards, and has no earthly rewards, he must not be holy or deserving? The poor man is sinful? I’m not trying to be taunting with that question, but it does seem to be the logical implication.

Mary writes:

Drew wrote: “Catholicism largely nullifies the truth about rewards, by teaching that a lifetime of good works can become null and void at the last minute based on a single “mortal sin,” thereby destroying the rewards.”

No. Only unrepentant mortal sin would be punished; an act of perfect contrition in danger of death will save the person.

Conversely, a person could have a lifetime of sin, then a deathbed conversion and be saved. I’m sure Drew must agree that that is possible.

Please follow and like us: