I appreciate the opportunity. Report back on how well or poorly I do.Hi JoeT
Something tells me from the tone of your post that you are probably not genuinely interested in understanding the Five Solas, and just have some axe to grind. This is your last chance to convince me otherwise.
Peace,
Ike
Hi JoeTBased on your comments I see a host of contradictions in saying sola Scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and Soli Deo gloria are individually and singularly the sole avenue to salvation. I base this on the fact that Baptism is an absolute necessity according to Christ [Cf. John 3:5]. Consequently we are not saved either by ‘reading’ Scripture, having knowledge of Scriptures, or having faith either in Scripture or the Christ without Baptism. This is true of other sacraments, an outward sign of an inward grace. For example, Christ said unless you “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood” you will not have life in you. (John 6:54] Likewise he asks that we persevere under discipline in faith. [Cf. Hebrews 12:7].
Fair enough, but keep in mind that most Protestants think of good works as the effect of salvation, not the actual “channel” through which they receive God’s promise of salvation. (In case you don’t know what I mean by “channel,” I’m using it in the same sense in which a Catholic could say that baptism is a channel through which he receives God’s promise of salvation.)We can however, be saved by faith alone insofar as it is accompanied by hope and charity - in which case it really doesn’t stand alone, now does it?
Understandable, though I believe that my above three paragraph sufficiently addresses that point, too.My point simply was there cannot be a thing we say is the cause of salvation ‘alone’, and at the same time requiring other things to be present and efficacious in its acts alone.
And this is where most Calvinists take this as evidence that all those who genuinely have faith in Christ will obtain the perfection of faith. I agree with you, though, that there is not too much consensus on Protestant soteriology.I have looked beyond this forum for the meaning behind the five solas and find little consensus among Protestants or reformers as to how we are saved ‘alone’. At least in part faith in any thing is to have knowledge of that thing which we hope to obtain [Cf. Hebrews 11:1]. A virtuous faith also implies fidelity: throughout scripture we find that it is the ‘faithful’ who obtain perfection in faith.
This statement is pretty much meaningless to Protestants, because they generally believe that all those who genuinely have faith in Christ are saved, and all those who are saved are in the Church in the invisible sense (not much different from how the Catholic Church teaches that all those who are baptized in the name of the Trinity are in communion with the Catholic Church, even though the communion is imperfect).If saying we have Scripture, faith, grace, Christ, and a glory to God without the community of faithful then we are not part of the ‘Body of Christ’; outside of which there is no salvation. [Cf. 1 Corinthians 12]. Therefore, our faith and fidelity is part of the community and can’t stand alone. That community is the Kingdom of God, we call “Church”.
I hope I have given you some insight on Protestant thinking, and how that even though they are wrong in many ways, they are not as bad or illogical as some polemicists make it out to be.If I don’t see things your way, it isn’t for the want of being open minded, it is being very careful of what the mind is opened for.
Two things:I appreciate the opportunity. Report back on how well or poorly I do.
Sacred Scriptures are the testimonies of witnesses of an objective Divine Word of God. Sacred Scriptures are materially sufficient for our salvation incorporating us in His Body. In my estimation, the BOOK is a mystical thing that appeared in the 1500’s (seemingly out of nowhere) worshiped subjectively as a divine object. BOOK is formally sufficient containing ‘all’ of salvation. Both Sacred Scripture and Book contain the teachings of Christ yet I find my definition of BOOK to be more prominent in the Protestant Churches but much less in the Catholic Church.Two things:
- Why did you, more than once, say the word “BOOK” in all caps? Is that your indirect yet highly derogatory way of criticizing Sola Scriptura? If so, then that is one way to prevent a Protestant from ever taking you seriously.
The opposite has been my experience, as you illustrated in assigning Scripture to the ‘sole and infallible rule of faith’. This is a doctrine not found in Scripture. On the other hand, we do find that the Church is given the authority to Baptize and teach. The Catholic Church teaches a Divine Word divinely. Where does Scripture assign to itself as the sole authority over the doctrines of faith, the sole and infallible rule of faith?
- Protestants don’t “worship” the Bible any more than Catholics “worship” the Church. What is “worshippy” about recognizing something as an infallible rule of faith and practice?
I didn’t improperly characterize Protestantism or reformism. In spite of good intentioned Catholics who would insist otherwise, there are very few theological similarities between Catholicism and Protestantism. They are built on completely different philosophies, baptism is a good example. Mainliners believe in a ‘symbolic’ sacrament and Catholics believe in a real and efficacious sacrament. According to most of Protestantism being saved through in Baptism is a ‘work’. There is no longer a ‘mainline’ Protestantism, only big Church and little Church Protestantism and the reason is the basic philosophy is subjective and relativistic.Hi JoeT
The point of my first reply was not to make a case that the Five Solas are true or Scriptural, but to demonstrate how they can be compatible with each other, despite the common misunderstanding that they contradict each other just because they are “five things that are alone.” I am no longer Protestant, so I don’t have to defend those doctrines as true. But I believe that representing the Protestant position accurately is key to ever getting them to take us seriously. I’m sure of this because I was a Protestant, and I’ve heard so much of the grossest misrepresentations of mainline Protestant doctrine from people of many sides, including Catholics. It was a big stumbling block from me to ever considering the Catholic side on justification seriously, let alone convincing me that their criticisms of my side are valid.
Catholics would say Baptism is a sacrament, an outward sign of an inward grace, they would not say it is a ‘work.’ The sacraments you might call ‘works’ and the charitable acts you call ‘works’ aren’t separated from faith. They can’t be separated because faith is hearing AND doing. If faith isn’t the act doing you’ve misunderstood what it means to have faith. I think I’ve mentioned before, faith has elements of fidelity. One is not faithful while being in schism with the Catholic Church.Fair enough, but keep in mind that most Protestants think of good works as the effect of salvation, not the actual “channel” through which they receive God’s promise of salvation. (In case you don’t know what I mean by “channel,” I’m using it in the same sense in which a Catholic could say that baptism is a channel through which he receives God’s promise of salvation.)
Luther once said that we are saved by faith alone, yet the faith that saves is never alone. It would be wrong to conclude that Luther has contradicted himself in one sentence, for Luther used the word “alone” in different context. In the former case, he is talking about the beginning of salvation, the beginning of the person’s relationship with God. That is, at the moment he places his faith in Christ, he gets saved; so he gets saved by faith before he even begins to do good works (faith alone). In the latter case, he is talking about the state of the person after salvation. Once he is saved, he wants to do good works because he wants to follow God out of love for him, not out of fear of failing to complete his salvation or lose his salvation. In that context, his faith is not alone; he also has good works. The great lie of Luther’s is that the Church ever taught justification by works which re derives from Romans 1:17, 3:21-22, and 10:.3. She has always taught that God’s justice is unmerited, i.e. justifying grace received in fidelity to our faith.
The Church teaches that there are five causes whereby we are justified:I realize that the idea of salvation being a one-time event (not a lifelong process) is completely foreign in Catholicism, so this is where most Catholics and Protestants will talk past each other. Heck, we even define the word “salvation” differently. Catholics recognize that salvation is an umbrella term that includes their past conversion, their present sanctification to do good works, and their future glorification in becoming sinless at the last day. These concepts exist in most Protestant theologies as well, but in practice, Protestants usually are only talking about the conversion aspect when they say the words “saved” or “salvation.”
Not satisfactory.Understandable, though I believe that my above three paragraph sufficiently addresses that point, too.
That’s not the Calvinist I know. It is my understanding they believe in double predestination. They say they are saved by faith alone, and once saved they are always saved if you are so predestined. Likewise, if you are predestined to perdition if God is so disposed. In the event of sin by those predestined to be saved, no sin is actually committed; it is God’s will that they sin - this is similar to Luther’s snow covered pile of dung. There is no free will, one either is saved or isn’t. They convince themselves they are saved by reading BOOK.And this is where most Calvinists take this as evidence that all those who genuinely have faith in Christ will obtain the perfection of faith. I agree with you, though, that there is not too much consensus on Protestant soteriology.
That’s because it can’t be accepted or made to fit the subjective mind. It’s no doubt they can’t understand.This statement is pretty much meaningless to Protestants, because they generally believe that all those who genuinely have faith in Christ are saved, and all those who are saved are in the Church in the invisible sense (not much different from how the Catholic Church teaches that all those who are baptized in the name of the Trinity are in communion with the Catholic Church, even though the communion is imperfect).
I hope I have given you some insight on Protestant thinking, and how that even though they are wrong in many ways; they are not as bad or illogical as some polemicists make it out to be.
God bless
Yes, some. However, there was never an attempt to take a contrary position just for the sake of argument. Thank you.
It sounds like your opinion is that believing in Sola Scriptura inevitably makes one a Bible worshiper. Okay…I’ll just say that I strongly disagree with you on that, and stop there.Sacred Scriptures are the testimonies of witnesses of an objective Divine Word of God. Sacred Scriptures are materially sufficient for our salvation incorporating us in His Body. In my estimation, the BOOK is a mystical thing that appeared in the 1500’s (seemingly out of nowhere) worshiped subjectively as a divine object. BOOK is formally sufficient containing ‘all’ of salvation. Both Sacred Scripture and Book contain the teachings of Christ yet I find my definition of BOOK to be more prominent in the Protestant Churches but much less in the Catholic Church.
That said, not being taken seriously is always a risk, besides nothing I write will provide faith. My only hope is to illustrate God’s objective Truth as opposed to an individual’s subjective truth; everything else will take a course according to God’s will. Also, faith isn’t a syrupy thing we poor on ourselves to sweeten our disposition. Rather it is a virtue, or a measure of strength, that “denotes a certain perfection of a power” which was given to ‘believe’ by the God’s grace. [Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, II, 55]. Hence a virtuous (strong) faith comes from hearing and doing [Matthew 7:24; Romans 10:17] as opposed to simply ‘reading’; the doing is accompanies the believing, not following. To be ‘strong’ in faith requires its regular exercise, the same habits we observe in athletes who exercise their bodies. Therefore, a virtuous faith must be accompanied with virtuous works. If not it is a ‘weak’ faith or no faith at all.
The opposite has been my experience, as you illustrated in assigning Scripture to the ‘sole and infallible rule of faith’. This is a doctrine not found in Scripture. On the other hand, we do find that the Church is given the authority to Baptize and teach. The Catholic Church teaches a Divine Word divinely. Where does Scripture assign to itself as the sole authority over the doctrines of faith, the sole and infallible rule of faith?
JoeT
It sounds like your opinion is that believing in Sola Scriptura inevitably makes one a Bible worshiper. Okay…I’ll just say that I strongly disagree with you on that, and stop there.Sacred Scriptures are the testimonies of witnesses of an objective Divine Word of God. Sacred Scriptures are materially sufficient for our salvation incorporating us in His Body. In my estimation, the BOOK is a mystical thing that appeared in the 1500’s (seemingly out of nowhere) worshiped subjectively as a divine object. BOOK is formally sufficient containing ‘all’ of salvation. Both Sacred Scripture and Book contain the teachings of Christ yet I find my definition of BOOK to be more prominent in the Protestant Churches but much less in the Catholic Church.
That said, not being taken seriously is always a risk, besides nothing I write will provide faith. My only hope is to illustrate God’s objective Truth as opposed to an individual’s subjective truth; everything else will take a course according to God’s will. Also, faith isn’t a syrupy thing we poor on ourselves to sweeten our disposition. Rather it is a virtue, or a measure of strength, that “denotes a certain perfection of a power” which was given to ‘believe’ by the God’s grace. [Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, II, 55]. Hence a virtuous (strong) faith comes from hearing and doing [Matthew 7:24; Romans 10:17] as opposed to simply ‘reading’; the doing is accompanies the believing, not following. To be ‘strong’ in faith requires its regular exercise, the same habits we observe in athletes who exercise their bodies. Therefore, a virtuous faith must be accompanied with virtuous works. If not it is a ‘weak’ faith or no faith at all.
The opposite has been my experience, as you illustrated in assigning Scripture to the ‘sole and infallible rule of faith’. This is a doctrine not found in Scripture. On the other hand, we do find that the Church is given the authority to Baptize and teach. The Catholic Church teaches a Divine Word divinely. Where does Scripture assign to itself as the sole authority over the doctrines of faith, the sole and infallible rule of faith?
JoeT