'Sola Fide' not entirely stood on is the universal understanding of soteriology... While 'Sola Fide" entirely stood on can be soundly rejected
Recently, the Blue Raja, in an attempt to clarify the value of using the "5 solas", has written a piece that asks good questions, but offers only the same ol' tired and worn out answers that, rather then clearing anything up, actually proliferate the anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism that Calvinism is famous for.
Read this short piece here:
The Blue Raja and the Superficial Solas
Here was my quick and hasty reply:
The complex relationship between faith and works is almost universally described as involving some kind of necessary dependence (even if that dependence is the construal of works as the necessary outgrowth of faith)
At any rate, works are necessary as a condition, then. If works are necessary in any sense or capacity, 2 of the 'solas' are fatally damaged (sola gratia, sola fide)... all 5 would need to be tossed, in actuality.
- so Lordship salvation somehow [sic - Please, Blue Raja, explain to us how!] can be held without denying this sola
It can only be held if one can withstand the mental dissonance of agreeing to two contradictory convictions.
If works are in any way, shape, or form a condition for final deliverance, as Lordship Salvation and Calvinism proposes, sola fide is thoroughly and logically denied.
One is reminded of the Red Queen in the story of Alice in Wonderland. When Alice protested that there is no use trying to believe impossible things, the Queen said:
"I dare say you haven't had much practice.... When I was your age I did it for half an hour a day. Why sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." (Lewis Carroll, Alice Through the Looking Glass (McMillian, 1880) pg 100)
while those who entirely stand on it [aka Free Grace Theology]
Funny. The implication is that those who reject the 'sola' actual stand for it better than those who "entirely stand on it". I suppose the Lordshippers and Calvinists do not entirely stand on it, by an inference from your statement.
can be soundly rejected.
Therefore, with the wave of the theological hand, the position that "entriely stand[s] on" 'sola fide' can be soundly rejected.
This is the stuff that fairytales are made of.
Those who can non-contradictorily claim 'sola fide' are soundly rejected.
But, those whose doctrine compromises 'sola fide', because the "universal" trend is to add works to faith in a paradoxical and sophisticated way, "somehow can be held without denying this sola".
But this shouldn't surprise anyone.
"Narrow is the gate... that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matt 7:14)
People just cannot get themselves to agree with the premise that full pardon from God, entrance into heaven, and eternal life have absolutely nothing to do with their behavior whatsoever; that nothing they have done or can or will do in the future has any bearing on whether or not they end up in the kingdom of God (barring, of course, simple faith into Christ).
They cannot get themselves to understand that even a sinful, debased individual, nevertheless justified and covered by the blood of Jesus, can be in God's kingdom.
Deep down inside they believe, in a very real way, that behavior is intrinsically correllated with one's hope of heaven.
But this is the case with all the world's religions. It takes religious faith and deeds to reach salvation.
This includes Calvinism and Lordship Salvation.
- but I'm left wondering exactly what the practical value of these slogans are.
What is the value of something that is free but none-the-less will cost you everything?