Must Protestants Believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura?

[Syele]

Most Protestants know that they are supposed to believe in the Bible alone and Faith alone. I would say more than 60%; however, I’m not sure if they do, or their respective denominations do.

No, Most protestants believe that Scripture is infalliable and that its God breathed, that is not the same as most definitions of Sola Scriptura, particularly the one Catholics like to assign to all Protestants. Most Protestants believe in saving faith, Also not the same as the typical debated topic of Sola Fide.

I’d put that up to 3/4 or so, but I basically agree…You will find people who say they believe them, but then when you get to know them, they clearly believe something else.
The solas are a lot less followed than most Catholics assume…

Very true.

Thanks Zooey, You always seem to have your head on straight

 

[Syele]

Actually I would bet that 3/4 of Protestants don’t know what Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are.

And they don’t particularly care.

Actually I’m not sure what they are myself…being Latin phrases without verbs and all that…

Here is a summary I wrote to explain them before, these are based on the reformation principles that brought about the Latin slogans:

• Sola Scriptura: The written Scripture, to the exclusion of Tradition and Magisterial edict.
• God saves the sinners, to the exclusion of any participation from the sinners.
• Sola Fide: One is Saved by faith, to the exclusion of their works helping them become saved.
• Sola Christus: Christ is our Mediator, to the exclusion of any other mediators.
• Sola Deo Gloria: All glory is due to God alone, to the exclusion of the option to highly honor anyone or anything (including Mary and other Saints)
  Many people have defined the 5 solas more precisely than the original ideas behind them, those definitions vary quite a bit. The original definitions were NOT meant to be taken alone, despite the “sola” it was supposed to be all 5 together in order to make sense. If you want to see detailed explanation of each one as the reformers would explain… read the Cambridge Declaration.

Most protestant do not believe the 5 solas as listed above. Many do say Yes if asked if they believe them but if you pry a bit, you find they believe some other definition.

 

[christcnection1]

No, Most protestants believe that Scripture is infalliable and that its God breathed, that is not the same as most definitions of Sola Scriptura, particularly the one Catholics like to assign to all Protestants. Most Protestants believe in saving faith, Also not the same as the typical debated topic of Sola Fide.

Actually, I’m glad to hear that.

Just to be clear, what are the definition that Catholics like to assign to all Protestants?

 

[Syele]

Actually, I’m glad to hear that.

Just to be clear, what are the definition that Catholics like to assign to all Protestants?

The actual reformed ones.

From Cambridge Declaration:

Thesis One: Sola Scriptura

We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

Thesis Four: Sola Fide

We reaffirm that justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God’s perfect justice.
We deny that justification rests on any merit to be found in us, or upon the grounds of an infusion of Christ’s righteousness in us, or that an institution claiming to be a church that denies or condemns sola fide can be recognized as a legitimate church.

 

[mozart-250]

Although you could be correct, it’s my hope and belief that God desires more than for us to merely have a strong hunch at the truth. And why wouldn’t He?

Just one comment…

My doctor. (who is capable of being incorrect) had more than a strong hunch I had prostate cancer. Based on objective tests he knew that to be the case.

For that matter, I (who also am capable of being incorrect in math) know that the derivative of x**2 is 2x (thought I would throw some simple calculus here to make it interesting).

The fact is that being incapable of being incorrect is not a prerequisite for knowing objective truth.

 

[mozart-250]

The actual reformed ones.

From Cambridge Declaration:

fwiw.

Well based on those definitions, I’m fairly sure I have some quibbles with Sola Scriptura.

I am not totally sure what Sola Fide is saying, but I think I have some quibbles with that also.

 

[Contarini]

I essentially agree with your loose definition.

However, the way it’s put might suggest that Catholics and Orthodox don’t think highly of scripture, which is certainly not the case. The Catholic Church uses far more of the Bible at Mass in any given year than the vast majority of Protestant churches. The majority of our liturgical prayer incorporate the Bible; I believe Anglicans do as well.

My point is that Catholics don’t look at the Bible as any less valuable as other churches; we merely place Sacred Tradition on a much higher pedestal than our separated brethren. The point being to accurately interpret scripture as a collective package.

I’m sorry. That’s why I initially said “a lower view of tradition relative to Scripture.” In rephrasing it, I tried to preserve the point that I’m talking about the relative value of the two.

I have read a liberal Anglican critique of the CCC which simultaneously criticized the Catholic Church for putting Scripture too low relative to tradition and for having too high a view of Scripture with regard to infallibility/inerrancy! Many Anglicans today seem to think of “sola scriptura” as a limit on the number of things that can be dogma, without being bound to think that everything in Scripture is true.

Edwin

 

[Syele]

fwiw.

Well based on those definitions, I’m fairly sure I have some quibbles with Sola Scriptura.

I am not totally sure what Sola Fide is saying, but I think I have some quibbles with that also.

I have many quibbles(haha fun word) with the definitions from the Cambridge Declaration. I think the protestants who adhere to them are in the minority by far, but I don’t have any source to prove it.

 

[christcnection1]

Just one comment…

My doctor. (who is capable of being incorrect) had more than a strong hunch I had prostate cancer. Based on objective tests he knew that to be the case.

For that matter, I (who also am capable of being incorrect in math) know that the derivative of x**2 is 2x (thought I would throw some simple calculus here to make it interesting).

The fact is that being incapable of being incorrect is not a prerequisite for knowing objective truth.

Hehe… This is a fun one to play along with.

If five educated and competent doctors had five very different answers concerning your specific health issue, that would be reason for concern. This is akin to what we see in much of Protestantism: Competent and educated men of God who often have very different views on what scripture means.

Even if my doctor was very educated, trustworthy, and so forth, I would be very concerned if four other doctors with good credentials had a very different perspective.

With what assurance do I have that my doctor is correct and the others are wrong? When it comes to “interpretation” of scripture, without a God given authority to determine its meaning, what criteria do we use to determine the best “doctor?”

Does God merely ask us to try our best? After all, the Church was established long before the New Testament, and it wasn’t until centuries later that the printing press was invented and most people could read.

 

[mozart-250]

Hehe… This is a fun one to play along with.

If five educated and competent doctors had five very different answers concerning your specific health issue, that would be reason for concern. This is akin to what we see in much of Protestantism: Competent and educated men of God who often have very different views on what scripture means.

Even if my doctor was very educated, trustworthy, and so forth, I would be very concerned if four other doctors with good credentials had a very different perspective.

With what assurance do I have that my doctor is correct and the others are wrong? When it comes to “interpretation” of scripture, without a God given authority to determine its meaning, what criteria do we use to determine the best “doctor?”

Does God merely ask us to try our best? After all, the Church was established long before the New Testament, and it wasn’t until centuries later that the printing press was invented and most people could read.

Actually my medical situation is not far removed from what you describe.

First of all, there are some things about prostate cancer which are established facts. These include detection (except a biopsy can fail to detect cancer),. staging (except that cancer can be restaged post operation as mine was), There are a number of treatment options all with upside (and some side effect risks).

But there are a number of other things about prostate cancer that the medical community just does not know enough about to have an established best practice for. I encountered one of those directly with my post-operation restaging (stage T3a). To be brief, the issue is how aggressively to you continue treatmen in this stage. Do you wait and see if it comes back because chances are it won’t? Or do you act preemptively to increase your long range chances (and risk possible side effects). My urologist opted for the wait-and-see approach. However, I figured that I owned my treatment and after doing much online research on my staging, I sought a second opinion and sprung for preemptive salvage radiation.

Anyway…this is all neglecting the quacks out there who want you to forego all medical treatment in favour of their assorted natural treatments.

I figure that Christianity is not unlike what I encountered in medicine.

First of all, there are the quacks out there that you just have to have the sense to ignore (example non-trinitarian Christians). After you do that, one must conclude that there are things in the Bible that are absolutely clear and that there should be no disagreement on. Just like some issues with prostate cancer.

These would be things that if you gave 25 folks with an 8th grade reading comprehension level the assignment of reading the New Testament, that these 25 folks would agree that the New Testaments absolutely teaches.

For example I would think that anyone with a eighth grade education could conclude that Jesus Christ lived, did a number of miracles, had 12 disciples, was crucified, and rose from the dead. And that shortly after he rose from the dead that these apostles started preaching this message to the world around them.

I have a simple view of such things…these are the things that God made perfectly clear because it was very important to Him to reveal this truth clearly in His written word.

And of course, there are also the things in the Bible that 25 folks that love God and have Doctorate Degrees disagree on.

I figure that these are the things that God hasn’t seen fit to give us the complete picture on. At least all that clearly. And of course, us being human, we want to fill in what we don’t know according to our best judgement (which will vary from person to person). Just like medicine.

Your response would naturally be “Wouldn’t it be nice to have a Church that could fill in all of these things that we don’t know from just reading the Bible without the possibility of error”. And of course it would be nice, But the issue really is whether that is something that God is actually doing. My problem is that I have little evidence that is the case.

And around it goes.

Anyway, this is sort of removed from the thread.

 

[christcnection1]

Your response would naturally be “Wouldn’t it be nice to have a Church that could fill in all of these things that we don’t know from just reading the Bible without the possibility of error”. And of course it would be nice, But the issue really is whether that is something that God is actually doing. My problem is that I have little evidence that is the case.

I do pray for your full healing and recovery, and that God would grant your doctor(s) wisdom and insight into your condition. One of the doctors has the most accurate, if not perfect treatment for you. I hope and pray you have that doctor.

---

You seem to assume that the Bible itself is free from error. I agree.

By what authority do you trust that word of God is authoritative? What authority did He want His people to be guided by before the New Testament was official? By what authority did He want His people to be governed and/or guided for centuries until most people could read and the printing press was invented?

By what authority to you presume that God only intended for us to use the Bible to attain truth? The Bible itself doesn’t say that we can only know the truth by the Bible alone. And it seems that you are suggesting that we can’t know all its meaning for sure, or that maybe it’s not too important to God that we have a total understanding. Where does the Bible suggest this?

If God intended to give us an inerrant Bible, but didn’t intend for us to understand all of it, this would be sad. If God intended for us to have an inerrant Bible, but have multiple fallible institutions, this would also be less satisfactory in my opinion.

Bottom line: I believe that if it’s in the Bible, God does not will for us to have major disagreements on major passages of His word.

To have a partial understanding of God’s word is like having a partial eclipse of His Son.