Without the text, the term has no meaning in our time:

“For by grave you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.”

The slogan may only be relevant in that context in Luther’s time, not in our time, thus, it is necessary to know the history of that time to understand what it means. I may call it “historic understanding” which Protestants after label “Protestant tradition”.

That much of exegesis and exposition by Luther resulted in the slogan and that might be the proper way to understand it. Thus, when one says sola fide in our time, it is clear.

I’m not convinced that the defining doctrine[s] of evangelical Christianity are as loose as you suggest. I agree that different traditions emphasis different doctrines more then others, but to ask “what makes an Evangelical”, “what are the defining features”, I think we can be closer united by looking at – for example – some good theological-history work on the subject done by, for example, Mark Noll. Whenever Evangelical Christianity is defined (no matter how loosely), I never hear any one say “sola fide”. I’m open to being corrected if it can be shown. I’m talking narrowly about Evangelical Christianity, not broadly as “Christianity” with different traditional doctrinal emphasis.

Regarding your second point, there can be no doubt that receiving the Gospel by faith is a crucial element. Very near the heart of the Gospel. But the point being made is that sola fide is not – strictly speaking – the Gospel. The Gospel is defined, for example, by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 as the life, death, resurrection, ascention of Jesus Christ. The Gospel was preached to Abraham in a forshadowing of the work of Christ (cf. Hebrews 3-4 also). But receiving the Gospel by faith is different from the Gospel itself.
Derek Ouellette´s last [type] ..Who was “The Son of Man” in Daniel 7 Manuscript

“1) The doctrine of sola fide has NOT “been the defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity”. The defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity is sola scriptura (it is a sad day when we have to remind any Protestant of this fact).”

Sproul probably overstated that. I would like to believe that the five solas define Evangelical Christianity, but maybe I’m too idealistic. I think that different traditions and perspectives emphasize different aspects of orthodox Christianity (I hope)…I am a Southern Baptist so sola scriptura was emphasized above the others. If you’re Neo-Orthodox solus Christus is probably at the top. Presbies probably sing soli deo gloria all day. If your not Reformed then maybe the creeds or Patristics guide your emphasis. The point is, that certain doctrines may be true and biblical but when we over-emphasize certain doctrines we undermine others and thereby distort the truth. We disagree on what defines evangelical Christianity but that’s nothing new. That’s why you’re a Wesleyan Methodist and I am a Reformed Southern Baptist. Were both Christians though.

“2) It is NOT true that without the doctrine of sola fide one does not have the Gospel. Nowhere in scripture is the Gospel defined as “sola fide”.”

I fear that we are committing the grave sin of reductionism (on both sides). Paul teaches in Galatians that God preached the gospel to Abraham. An expression of the gospel proclamation is that “In you [him] shall all the nations be blessed” (Gal. 3:8). This included the Gentiles being justified by faith—”So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith” (Gal. 3:7-9). Those of faith are Abraham’s seed and are in Christ (His Seed). According to Paul, sola fide is a part of the gospel (a faithful Seed; and seeds)(Gal. 3:16-29). Believers that become Abraham’s offspring by faith are a part of the promise (the gospel).

The Reformed doctrine of Justification also expresses what we believe about the gospel (which was distorted by the Roman Church at that time). Paul, speaking to the Galatians, accuses them of distorting the…

First, I do not believe I said Wright uses Justification language for “entry level”. Wright believes that we are Justified because of what Christ did for us on the Cross (Phil 2:5-11). When we believe the Gospel and are saved we are therefore – as a matter of ecclesiology – justified. So you are at least right that they are talking about two different things, which happens to be near the center of the whole debate.

Secondly, I never said he doesn’t hold to Sola Fide. What Wright rejects is that “salvation by faith” = “Sola Fide”. These are not the same thing. In Wright’s crystal clear teaching, “salvation” is “soteriology” while “Sola Fide” is “ecclesiology”. As you said, “Wright does not use “Justification” for “entry level” at all”. Agreed. Justification is not about soteriology (entry level), but about ecclesiology (who’s in). To use Sander’s language (as Wright does), justification is “not about getting in. It’s about being in or who’s in”.

So does Wright believe in Sola Fide? Yes Wright does believe that we are justified by our faith. But he gets there by another route, not through the traditional reading of Galatians 2, Romans 3 or Philippians 3, because Paul simply does not talk that way in those passages. How are we justified by faith then? It is not “faith = justification” (as tradition understands it via passages like Galatians 2:16 mistranslating pistis Christu). It is “faith = grace = salvation = “in Christ” = therefore Justified”. You are right; on this issue N.T. Wright is crystal clear.

Though the issues may be confusing to some, I do not believe I have confused them. If you think I have I’d be curious as to your proof.
Derek Ouellette´s last [type] ..Evangelicalism Is… Boundaryless

Naw. You’re confusing the issues. For one thing, Wright (wrongly) does not use “justification” for “entry level” language at all. Which means that they’re talking about two different things to begin with.

But you’re also wrong that he doesn’t hold to sola fide even with regard to his view of justification – you cannot pit Christ’s pistos over against that of the believer. They’re on “opposites sides” of the equation, so to speak. Wright is actually very clear that justification is by faith, i.e. the believer’s faith.
TimG´s last [type] ..Some perspective

In N.T. Wright’s book, Justification, he quotes Alister McGrath approvingly to the effect of making a clear distinction between the “Biblical concept of Justification” and the later “church doctrine of Justification” (citing Augustine as its earliest roots).

For Wright, the Biblical concept of Justification is to be understood as a part of the soteriology process, whereas the church doctrine of Justification has raised it up to be nearly synonymous with soteriology itself! Almost everyone thinks this way now and is reflected in you statement: “There is no salvation apart from faith”. This is exactly what Wright rejects (that this statement is about sola fide) and believes that understanding this is foundational to understanding what he believes the scriptures to teach on this matter.

Justification is usually thought of by considering Galatians 2:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 as saying the same thing. For Wright – and I agree – the biblical concept of Justification is better viewed as considering Galatians 2:16 and Philippians 2:5-11 as being closer to the mark with one another. Salvation is by faith alone, but Justification (one part of the salvation process) is through the work (i.e. faithfulness) of Jesus Christ on the cross. If you are saved by faith then you participate in Christ (i.e. ecclesiology) and are therefore Justified.

So I understand the differences between Sproul and Wright to be much greater.

Be blessed my friend. (P.S. I like your blog)
Derek Ouellette´s last [type] ..The Post After On the “NP”

Blessings in Christ!
A.M. Mallett´s last [type] ..Arminius on the Divinity of the Son of God

@ Kurt: lol. I hadn’t really thought of the post as a boxing match analogy, but it fits.
Derek Ouellette´s last [type] ..RC Sproul- NT Wright and the Scarecrow