Nicaea, the Reformation and the theological essentials

[IgnatianPhilo]

I’ve been brooding over this idea for a while and I would like to hear what others think about it. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are the heart of the reformation. Protestants who defend the reformation base the justification of schism with the Roman Catholic Church on the basis that the RCC failed to adhere to these principles/doctrines which they would argue are the core of the Gospel (Sola-Fide is the gospel message in all Protestantism it seems to me).

The ideas themselves do not seem to be explicitly taught in the formulas that are expounded today in the Church before the reformation, though Protestants would argue from Biblical and Patristic texts that these ideas were always present though not defined with outright clarity.

This seems to me parallel then to the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople from which all Christians have received their basic definition of who Christ in the Trinity is. In the ante Nicene period most of us would recognise a basic doctrine of the Trinity emerging over course of time till it was expounded with greater clarity by figures like Athanasius, the Cappadocians and Augustine.

The Trinity is an essential doctrine, which all who claim to be Christians are expected to hold to. All of us, Reformed, Orthodox and Catholic would reject those who deny the definition and so we don’t recognise groups like the Arians, Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons and etc.

So my question for Protestants is this: are the ideas of Sola-Scriptura and Sola-Fide essential on the same level as the Trinity? If that is the case and those who have rejected or not accepted the definitions of the reformation are still around, can they properly be considered Christians if they reject such a fundamental definition of how it is we understand the faith and are saved?

If the Orthodox and Catholic Church (one of which has not defined the salvation process) continue to reject these essentials (as I believe them to be in Protestantism), how can either be considered properly Christian? Or is that these doctrines are not as essential as appears in Protestantism?

Any responses would be appreciated.

 

[PartyOnBarth]

I’ve been brooding over this idea for a while and I would like to hear what others think about it. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are the heart of the reformation. Protestants who defend the reformation base the justification of schism with the Roman Catholic Church on the basis that the RCC failed to adhere to these principles/doctrines which they would argue are the core of the Gospel (Sola-Fide is the gospel message in all Protestantism it seems to me).

The ideas themselves do not seem to be explicitly taught in the formulas that are expounded today in the Church before the reformation, though Protestants would argue from Biblical and Patristic texts that these ideas were always present though not defined with outright clarity.

This seems to me parallel then to the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople from which all Christians have received their basic definition of who Christ in the Trinity is. In the ante Nicene period most of us would recognise a basic doctrine of the Trinity emerging over course of time till it was expounded with greater clarity by figures like Athanasius, the Cappadocians and Augustine.

The Trinity is an essential doctrine, which all who claim to be Christians are expected to hold to. All of us, Reformed, Orthodox and Catholic would reject those who deny the definition and so we don’t recognise groups like the Arians, Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons and etc.

So my question for Protestants is this: are the ideas of Sola-Scriptura and Sola-Fide essential on the same level as the Trinity? If that is the case and those who have rejected or not accepted the definitions of the reformation are still around, can they properly be considered Christians if they reject such a fundamental definition of how it is we understand the faith and are saved?

If the Orthodox and Catholic Church (one of which has not defined the salvation process) continue to reject these essentials (as I believe them to be in Protestantism), how can either be considered properly Christian? Or is that these doctrines are not as essential as appears in Protestantism?

Any responses would be appreciated.

I would say that Sola Scriptura is a practice and therefore not necessary for salvation, just as any practice is not necessary. And for Sola Fide I would say that we are saved by faith alone, but not by believing we are saved by faith alone.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I would say that Sola Scriptura is a practice and therefore not necessary for salvation, just as any practice is not necessary. And for Sola Fide I would say that we are saved by faith alone, but not by believing we are saved by faith alone.

The question isn’t aimed so much at salvation, but what is truly essential to be considered a Christian in the full and proper sense. I think we can all admit there are those who might adhere to true doctrine though they might not be ‘saved.’

So is Sola Scriptura/Fide not on the same level as knowledge of the trinity when it comes to an exposition of the Christian faith? If not why was it an important enough of an issue that the reformers felt the need to separate from the Roman Church?

 

[Reuben_J]

I’ve been brooding over this idea for a while and I would like to hear what others think about it. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are the heart of the reformation. Protestants who defend the reformation base the justification of schism with the Roman Catholic Church on the basis that the RCC failed to adhere to these principles/doctrines which they would argue are the core of the Gospel (Sola-Fide is the gospel message in all Protestantism it seems to me).

The ideas themselves do not seem to be explicitly taught in the formulas that are expounded today in the Church before the reformation, though Protestants would argue from Biblical and Patristic texts that these ideas were always present though not defined with outright clarity.

This seems to me parallel then to the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople from which all Christians have received their basic definition of who Christ in the Trinity is. In the ante Nicene period most of us would recognise a basic doctrine of the Trinity emerging over course of time till it was expounded with greater clarity by figures like Athanasius, the Cappadocians and Augustine.

The Trinity is an essential doctrine, which all who claim to be Christians are expected to hold to. All of us, Reformed, Orthodox and Catholic would reject those who deny the definition and so we don’t recognise groups like the Arians, Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons and etc.

So my question for Protestants is this: are the ideas of Sola-Scriptura and Sola-Fide essential on the same level as the Trinity? If that is the case and those who have rejected or not accepted the definitions of the reformation are still around, can they properly be considered Christians if they reject such a fundamental definition of how it is we understand the faith and are saved?

If the Orthodox and Catholic Church (one of which has not defined the salvation process) continue to reject these essentials (as I believe them to be in Protestantism), how can either be considered properly Christian? Or is that these doctrines are not as essential as appears in Protestantism?

Any responses would be appreciated.

An interesting post. There were times when I think about why Sola-Scriptural and Sola-Fide came about and my personal inference was that these were more of reactions to the excesses of the Catholic Church then. As in most things, reactionary action could always go into the extreme. So that was their mistake. Sola-Scriptural and Sola-Fide were not Biblical.

The reformers should just correct those excesses but they could not do it within the Church. There was definitely lots of bitterness and when they opted from the outside, they threw out everything from the window.

Today the modern Protestants were already too deep in their tradition and belief, returning back to the original Church even after those excesses were rectified was not possible anymore. The Catholic belief and practice were rejected because they were too Catholic/Orthodox.

 

[adf417]

The question isn’t aimed so much at salvation, but what is truly essential to be considered a Christian in the full and proper sense. I think we can all admit there are those who might adhere to true doctrine though they might not be ‘saved.’

So is Sola Scriptura/Fide not on the same level as knowledge of the trinity when it comes to an exposition of the Christian faith? If not why was it an important enough of an issue that the reformers felt the need to separate from the Roman Church?

Interesting! I would like to here more on this also.

Peace!!!

 

[alwayswill]

So my question for Protestants is this: are the ideas of Sola-Scriptura and Sola-Fide essential on the same level as the Trinity? If that is the case and those who have rejected or not accepted the definitions of the reformation are still around, can they properly be considered Christians if they reject such a fundamental definition of how it is we understand the faith and are saved?

If the Orthodox and Catholic Church (one of which has not defined the salvation process) continue to reject these essentials (as I believe them to be in Protestantism), how can either be considered properly Christian? Or is that these doctrines are not as essential as appears in Protestantism?

Any responses would be appreciated.

Perfection in Theological understanding has never been a requirement for salvation.
Perfection in Soteriological understanding has never been a requirement for salvation.

and BTW: as we are approaching the 500th anniversary of the Reformation:
we may want to check current discussions/ views coming out of the Catholic Church regarding Luther and Sola Fide.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Perfection in Theological understanding has never been a requirement for salvation.
Perfection in Soteriological understanding has never been a requirement for salvation.

and BTW: as we are approaching the 500th anniversary of the Reformation:
we may want to check current discussions/ views coming out of the Catholic Church regarding Luther and Sola Fide.

Is he close to beatification?

 

[alwayswill]

Is he close to beatification?

or much more importantly; is Luther close to be declared correct on Sola Fide?

 

[MichaelP3]

I’ve been brooding over this idea for a while and I would like to hear what others think about it. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are the heart of the reformation. Protestants who defend the reformation base the justification of schism with the Roman Catholic Church on the basis that the RCC failed to adhere to these principles/doctrines which they would argue are the core of the Gospel (Sola-Fide is the gospel message in all Protestantism it seems to me).

The ideas themselves do not seem to be explicitly taught in the formulas that are expounded today in the Church before the reformation, though Protestants would argue from Biblical and Patristic texts that these ideas were always present though not defined with outright clarity.

This seems to me parallel then to the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople from which all Christians have received their basic definition of who Christ in the Trinity is. In the ante Nicene period most of us would recognise a basic doctrine of the Trinity emerging over course of time till it was expounded with greater clarity by figures like Athanasius, the Cappadocians and Augustine.

The Trinity is an essential doctrine, which all who claim to be Christians are expected to hold to. All of us, Reformed, Orthodox and Catholic would reject those who deny the definition and so we don’t recognise groups like the Arians, Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons and etc.

So my question for Protestants is this: are the ideas of Sola-Scriptura and Sola-Fide essential on the same level as the Trinity? If that is the case and those who have rejected or not accepted the definitions of the reformation are still around, can they properly be considered Christians if they reject such a fundamental definition of how it is we understand the faith and are saved?

If the Orthodox and Catholic Church (one of which has not defined the salvation process) continue to reject these essentials (as I believe them to be in Protestantism), how can either be considered properly Christian? Or is that these doctrines are not as essential as appears in Protestantism?

Any responses would be appreciated.

No it is not. The only essential in mainstream Protestantism is exactly what we both profess in the Nicene Creed.

To believe what the Nicene Creed says yes, to believe in the belief of any TULIP or whatever, no.

I would agree somewhat with Reuben J. It is a reactionary to reject certain essentials in Catholicism. But it wasn’t an essential in itself.

 

[SyroMalankara]

or much more importantly; is Luther close to be declared correct on Sola Fide?

Only if the definition is broadened as to allow the meaning, as we know it today, to be expunged or rather attenuated.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Perfection in Theological understanding has never been a requirement for salvation.
Perfection in Soteriological understanding has never been a requirement for salvation.

and BTW: as we are approaching the 500th anniversary of the Reformation:
we may want to check current discussions/ views coming out of the Catholic Church regarding Luther and Sola Fide.

If I gave that impression I will say I’m sorry. I’m not intending to make this a soteriological matter, rather what is the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. To this extent I think Sola Scripture while important for the Protestant is not as essential as Sola Fide. The core of the idea being that we can do absolutely nothing to attain our own salvation. Both Luther and Calvin were focused on this question of Justification and rejected any notion that went beyond the grace of God in salvation. They seemed to reject any language which even suggested doing works for salvation (whereas in earlier Patriotic texts that sort of language is used on occasion).

So while a complete knowledge of the ideas of Sola Fide isn’t required in Protestantism, wouldn’t the basic idea be an absolute essential? I try to listen to what Lutherans and Reformed and Evangelicals have to say and they tend to emphasise this belief and say its the reason why they cannot accept communion with the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, because both fail to expound it.

There are certain reformed types who would reject Orthodox and Catholics as Christians on this basis and it makes sense to me. Have they over emphasised the importance of Sola Fide?

 

[PartyOnBarth]

The question isn’t aimed so much at salvation, but what is truly essential to be considered a Christian in the full and proper sense. I think we can all admit there are those who might adhere to true doctrine though they might not be ‘saved.’

So is Sola Scriptura/Fide not on the same level as knowledge of the trinity when it comes to an exposition of the Christian faith? If not why was it an important enough of an issue that the reformers felt the need to separate from the Roman Church?

Yes I would say that Sola Fide is as important as the Trinity when it comes to exposition of the Christian Faith. Sola Scripture I would say is not as important.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

or much more importantly; is Luther close to be declared correct on Sola Fide?

Been essentially saying the same thing for years about true faith, or faith working through love being saving faith…just speaking different languages.

Where i never see a agreement is on Luther’s dung covered in snow theory and the infused vs imputed righteousness debate. The Church has always believed salvation is a process that needs to be worked out with fear and trembling in each individual.

 

[Kliska]

Been essentially saying the same thing for years about true faith, or faith working through love being saving faith…just speaking different languages.

I personally feel this is true, at the very least in modern times and language. There are misunderstandings on both side among those who haven’t really researched each side and what was actually taught and said… and lived.

As for the wider questions in the OP; as a protestant I don’t think a head thought about “faith alone” or “scripture alone” is what saves, so they can’t make or break, though I admit some protestants think they do in my own experience.

 

[JMM1957]

or much more importantly; is Luther close to be declared correct on Sola Fide?

By whom?

 

[alwayswill]

By whom?

From Pope Benedict XVI actually saying Luther was right

to the JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION from the Vatican

to the recently announced “substantial agreement” with Lutherans by the USCCB

50 or 100 years ago these events would be an earth shattering reversal of Catholic teaching :
today, its just an ongoing clarification of what was always taught.

". But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it. "
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

. But whatever in the justified
precedes** or** follows
the **free gift **of faith
is neither the basis of justification
nor merits it.

Amen!!

 

[JMM1957]

From Pope Benedict XVI actually saying Luther was right

to the JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION from the Vatican

to the recently announced “substantial agreement” with Lutherans by the USCCB

50 or 100 years ago these events would be an earth shattering reversal of Catholic teaching :
today, its just an ongoing clarification of what was always taught.

". But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it. "
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

. But whatever in the justified
precedes** or** follows
the **free gift **of faith
is neither the basis of justification
nor merits it.

Amen!!

Yes, Benedict did address a group of German Lutherans on this and related subjects, and spoke of justification by faith through grace, not by works. This was always believed by both P’s and C’s, its just that the language used in the interpreting of the biblical references to justification (since Luther) had been a stumbling block. I applaud Benedict for his statement, and he did it without compromising any previous Catholic beliefs about justification. And the Protestant’s are probably all happy because they think that the CC has finally, after 500 years, admitted Luther was right.

 

[alwayswill]

…
And the Protestant’s are probably all happy because they think that the CC has finally, after 500 years, admitted Luther was right.

and the traditional/ Traditionalist Catholics are probably all outraged because they think that the CC has finally, after 500 years, admitted Luther was right.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Yes, Benedict did address a group of German Lutherans on this and related subjects, and spoke of justification by faith through grace, not by works. This was always believed by both P’s and C’s, its just that the language used in the interpreting of the biblical references to justification (since Luther) had been a stumbling block. I applaud Benedict for his statement, and he did it without compromising any previous Catholic beliefs about justification. And the Protestant’s are probably all happy because they think that the CC has finally, after 500 years, admitted Luther was right.

Actually, that might well be the view of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, but the Confessional Lutherans might beg to differ on that point:

*TOWARD TRUE RECONCILIATION
A Comment on Lutheran-Roman Catholic Relations

You may have heard that a declaration was signed that claims to resolve a key difference between the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church. What you may not have heard is that more than 45 percent of the Lutheran church-bodies in the world did not support the declaration.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is the oldest and second-largest Lutheran church-body in the United States. We would like to explain why we could not support the declaration.

We rejoice that we have much in common with our fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic Church. Because of what we have in common, we are committed to working toward true reconciliation of our important differences. We could not support the declaration because it does not actually reconcile the difference between us concerning the most important truth of Christianity.

What is that truth? God loved the world so much that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live a perfect life in our place and to die for our sins. God declares us to be totally righteous and completely forgiven because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God gives us eternal life as a free gift through trust in Christ alone.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that something more than trust in Christ is necessary for us to be saved. It teaches that we are able to merit, through our works, eternal life for ourselves and others. We believe this teaching obscures the work of Jesus Christ and clouds the central message of the Bible.

Therefore, despite what has been reported in the public media about the Lutheran-Roman Catholic declaration, very significant differences remain in regard to how we understand salvation, a fact that the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges.

We pray for genuine reconciliation of differences among Christians. Our church is intent on working for the day when the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed with one voice. We will continue to work toward true reconciliation.

A Statement from the Office of the President
The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod
International Center
1333 South Kirkwood Road
St. Louis, Missouri 63122-7295

• lutherquest.org/walther/articles/-400/lcms0001.htm

 

[alwayswill]

Actually, that might well be the view of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, but the Confessional Lutherans might beg to differ on that point:

TOWARD TRUE RECONCILIATION
A Comment on Lutheran-Roman Catholic Relations

You may have heard that a declaration was signed that claims to resolve a key difference between the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church. What you may not have heard is that more than 45 percent of the Lutheran church-bodies in the world did not support the declaration.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is the oldest and second-largest Lutheran church-body in the United States. We would like to explain why we could not support the declaration.

We rejoice that we have much in common with our fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic Church. Because of what we have in common, we are committed to working toward true reconciliation of our important differences. We could not support the declaration because it does not actually reconcile the difference between us concerning the most important truth of Christianity.

What is that truth? God loved the world so much that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live a perfect life in our place and to die for our sins. God declares us to be totally righteous and completely forgiven because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God gives us eternal life as a free gift through trust in Christ alone.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that something more than trust in Christ is necessary for us to be saved. It teaches that we are able to merit, through our works, eternal life for ourselves and others. We believe this teaching obscures the work of Jesus Christ and clouds the central message of the Bible.

Therefore, despite what has been reported in the public media about the Lutheran-Roman Catholic declaration, very significant differences remain in regard to how we understand salvation, a fact that the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges.

We pray for genuine reconciliation of differences among Christians. Our church is intent on working for the day when the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed with one voice. We will continue to work toward true reconciliation.

A Statement from the Office of the President
The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod
International Center
1333 South Kirkwood Road
St. Louis, Missouri 63122-7295
lutherquest.org/walther/articles/-400/lcms0001.htm

false ecumenism is reject by conservative Protestants and traditional Catholics…

so then, who is in favor of it?

The liberal, gay - marrying Protestants and “what kind” of Catholics?