L
lilypadrees
Guest
When my mother was a Protestant, she and her family didn’t observe Lent.
Do “Sola Scriptura” Protestants observe Lent? If so, why? It isn’t biblical
H
Hodos
Guest
Variations of this question are constantly being asked on this site, primarily because Catholic apologists have erected a complete canard of what Sola Scriptura means. To understand it you need to look at the historical context of the Reformation. Martin Luther rightly brought up a number of concerns about the abusive practices of indulgences, simony, and other Church traditions that had cropped up by the Renaissance. He noted many of these practices were corruptions that were doctrinally sketchy and were contradictions to scripture. In challenging these he expected the Papal authority to initiate reform. However, rather Pope Leo X doubled down on these abuses. Luther was ordered to recant or be declared a heretic and outlaw, even though his detractors agreed with many of his complaints and could not defend them scripturally. Luther was presented with the choice to obey the Pope, or to faithfully teach the gospel. Luther chose the gospel.
Sola scriptura says that the scriptures provide the sole infallible rule of faith for the determination of doctrine and practice because of their nature as being the God breathed revelation of Jesus Christ. Notice that the words “sole infallible” are a unit. Sole doesn’t mean only, it means the only infallible authority. It means that scripture holds primacy as the means by which our faith and practice is normed. Therefore, when tradition or Church authority contradict the clear meaning of scripture as the God-breathed revelation of Jesus Christ wins.
Luther’s reformation was a conservative reformation. He retained the practices of the Church where they worked in harmony with the gospel such as the liturgy and lectionary. He did things such as hold service in the vernacular to catechize the people, and developed hymns in the vernacular that the congregation would sing. He only got rid of practices that were at odds with the gospel. If one reads the Augsburg Confession, one would see that the early Reformers were very conscientious about retaining tradition, and consistently cite the scripture and the early Church fathers when defending themselves against the charges of their opponents.
In that light, there is absolutely no contradiction with observing Lent, a tradition which focuses our liturgy on repentance leading to the Passion week where Christ’s death and resurrection are proclaimed. In other words, the tradition does not contradict the gospel as normed by the scriptures, and works in concert with it.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
I think everything you say in that post is correct, with the reservation that it applies to some sola scriptura adherents only. As @HopkinsReb and other posters have pointed out on this thread, there is no single definition of sola scriptura that is accepted by all those who proclaim it as their doctrine.
And not all view it as a doctrine.
H
Hodos
Guest
Many think of the Trinity in modalistic or subordinationist terms because they are misinformed of its definition. That doesn’t redefine the doctrine of the Trinity or make it less true. The same goes for Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia.
Last edited:
S
SFJoseph
Guest
Excuse me Reformed and Presbyterians observe Lent is is part of our holy days. Mainline Presbyterians such as PCUSA , PCA, Cumberland and Reformed Church in America and I believe even Orthodox Presbyterian all observe lent. There may be offshoot groups that are off the chart that do not, would not know anything about them. Generally Anabaptist and Baptist and Evangelicals that are born again" do not observe for the most part.
S
steve-b
Guest
Examples:
scripturally
Lent … Catholic encyclopedia
AND
“since the time of “our forefathers” — always an expression for the apostles — a 40-day period of Lenten preparation existed. However, the actual practices and duration of Lent were still not homogenous throughout the Church.”… From: HERE
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
From your link to CERC:
When Rufinus translated this passage from Greek into Latin, the punctuation made between “40” and “hours” made the meaning to appear to be “40 days, twenty-four hours a day.”
Eusebius didn’t say anything about a forty-day Lenten fast. That was a mistranslation, as your link makes clear, and as your other link also confirms. Up till the reign of Constantine, there is no record of a pre-Easter fast lasting as long as forty days. The usual duration is only about two or three days.
When Rufinus translated this passage from Greek into Latin, the punctuation made between “40” and “hours” made the meaning to appear to be “40 days, twenty-four hours a day.”
Eusebius didn’t say anything about a forty-day Lenten fast. That was a mistranslation, as your link makes clear, and as your other link also confirms. Up till the reign of Constantine, there is no record of a pre-Easter fast lasting as long as forty days. The usual duration is only about two or three days.
Last edited:
T
TULIPed
Guest
Fasting and sacrificial living isn’t biblical?
Thank goodness. Now I’ll be able to drink bottled beer again after Mardi Gras!!
(Reformed Protestant here who (very, very begrudgingly and full of complaints and self pity to all I meet) takes Lenten vows every year. Feel sorry for me please.)
Thank goodness. Now I’ll be able to drink bottled beer again after Mardi Gras!!
(Reformed Protestant here who (very, very begrudgingly and full of complaints and self pity to all I meet) takes Lenten vows every year. Feel sorry for me please.)
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Fasting and sacrificial living are, but fasting and sacrificial living during Lent aren’t.
It’s kind of like the time that Calvin chewed out his congregation for showing up in large numbers for a Christmas service. Sure, you should celebrate the birth of Christ, but not celebrate Christmas.
S
steve-b
Guest
Point being, Jesus fast in the desert for 40 days, is used as the example for Lent (40 day preparation for Easter).
B
BartholomewB
Guest
@steve-b, please reread my post #3 on this thread. We know that Jesus’ forty-day fast in the desert is where the idea of Lent comes from. But my question is about the observance of Lent. Who were the first Christians to designate the pre-Easter period as the right time of year to fast for forty days? Where was that practice first introduced, and when?
T
TULIPed
Guest
Well said. The Bible speaks of fasting and sacrificial living year around.
S
steve-b
Guest
When I gave this link
“since the time of “our forefathers” — always an expression for the apostles — a 40-day period of Lenten preparation existed . However, the actual practices and duration of Lent were still not homogenous throughout the Church.”… From: HERE
it was for the purpose to show that while the practices during Lent weren’t permanently fixed yet, the practice was there.
1 example, in a.d. 339, that’s before there was a finalized canon of scripture, Athanasius wrote in this letter to his flock
- Outrages on Good Friday and Easter Day, 339
…led away to the tribunal of the governor, and then cast into prison; others had their goods confiscated, and were scourged; the bread of the ministers and virgins was intercepted. And these things were done even during the holy season of Lent , about the time of Easter; a time when the brethren were keeping fast, while this notable Gregory exhibited the disposition of a Caiaphas, and, together with Pilate the Governor, furiously raged against the pious worshippers of Christ. Going into one of the churches on the Preparation , in company with the Governor and the heathen multitude, when he saw that the people regarded with abhorrence his forcible entry among them, he caused that most cruel person, the Governor, publicly to scourge in one hour, four and thirty virgins and married women, and men of rank, and to cast them into prison. …
While It doesn’t talk about specifics of fasting during lent, He mentions there is a “season of lent” and there is fasting at that time.
Just one example from a doctor of the Churcvh
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Yes, Athanasius. That takes us back to square one, doesn’t it? Look at the very first sentence in my OP.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Considering the opening question, "Do Sola Scriptura Protestants observe Lent? why? It isn’t biblical "
Lent, (not the name) in some form, has been around in the Church, a long time. The practice (not the name) can be shown in Scripture, and as you and I have shown, by 325 or so, (Athanasius etc )shows in writing , prior to Easter, there is “a season” of lent where fasting takes place. Re: the number 40, as in 40 days and nights, that’s a number with much significance in scripture.
So while names like Trinity aren’t in scripture, but we see the meaning in scripture of Trinity, so also do we see the meaning of Lent, (not the name) for 40 days and nights, AND fasting for that time.
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
To piggyback on your thread, I refer back to my original post that people who even ask this question don’t understand what sola scriptura means.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
My Evangelical Free friend does not observe Lent.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
@steve-b, you really aren’t reading my posts, are you? Now, for the third time on this thread, let me explain as clearly as I can what, exactly, the information is that I am looking for. We know that Jesus’ forty-day fast in the desert is where the idea of Lent comes from. But my question is about the observance of Lent. Who were the first Christians to designate the pre-Easter period as the right time of year to fast for forty days? Where was that practice first introduced, and when?
Forty days. Pre-Easter. Lent. Fasting. Who did it first? Where and when?
Forty days. Pre-Easter. Lent. Fasting. Who did it first? Where and when?
S
steve-b
Guest
looking back on just one point you made,
" Martin Luther rightly brought up a number of concerns about the abusive practices of indulgences, simony, and other Church traditions that had cropped up by the Renaissance."
While a few in the Church abused the practice of indulgence, abuse wasn’t the tradition of the Church. Any more than Judas in what he did defined the Church practice. So I would just say, Martin Luther with all his own errors, and what would ultimately happen as a result of him, he was hardly a person to talk about abusive practices of a few in the Church…
Last edited: