H
Hisalone
Guest
The forgotten Sola.
Why did the Reformists think it was necessary to include this?
Why did the Reformists think it was necessary to include this?
Because they took it upon themselves to deny the historical teaching of the Communion of Saints, which was first articualted by an ECF in 335 AD?The forgotten Sola.
Why did the Reformists think it was necessary to include this?
The forgotten Sola.
Why did the Reformists think it was necessary to include this?
Where would the RCC be today with indulgences if it hadn’t been for the reformers? (A lot less money problems, I guess)
Who knows? They included Sola Gratia, which is something the Church did, and has always, taught.
By the way, does having 5 ‘solas’ make any sense at all? Wouldn’t having just 2 be one too many?
God bless
Why are you being such a terrible witness for our Lord?Where would the RCC be today with indulgences if it hadn’t been for the reformers? (A lot less money problems, I guess)
Because Protestants think that Catholics try to earn our salvation, and so we would get the glory for getting ourselves to Heaven.The forgotten Sola.
Why did the Reformists think it was necessary to include this?
Sola Gratia, Sola Christus, and Sola Deo Gloria.It’s worth noting too, that with no real alteration of intent or definition, Catholics can and should gladly embrace three of the five.
HisAlone, I just wanted to say that the post below by nbtb has really made me appreciate you. I know you didn’t have a good experience with the Catholic Church and you don’t agree with its doctrines, and you are sometimes very adamant about your disagreement, but the below poster makes you look like roses. I am being completely honest that it has made me appreciate you.Soli Deo gloria is one of the five solas propounded to summarise the Reformers’ basic beliefs during the Protestant Reformation; it is a Latin term for Glory to God alone.
The emphasis was allegedly in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day.
The doctrine states essentially that everything that is done is for God’s glory to the exclusion of humankind’s self-glorification and pride. The idea is that Christians are to be motivated and inspired by God’s glory and not their own.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soli_Deo_gloria
Where would the RCC be today with indulgences if it hadn’t been for the reformers? (A lot less money problems, I guess)
The problem is that if they miss #1 it doesn’t matter what they believe about the rest. Satan knows all those doctrines are true. He just doesn’t cling to Christ alone for his salvation (and of course can’t, because God will not draw him to himself.)I think it had to do with the common conception that the Church, in the persons of her leaders, were too often seeking their own glory than that of the God they claimed to serve.
A quick look at the history of the renaissance papacy makes it difficult to disagree.
Anyway, it’s a predominantly Calvinist instistence. Lutherans are content with three solas for the most part, while the Calvinists tend to include two more:
Lutherans:
Calvinists historically have added:
- Sola Fide
- Sola Scriptura
- Sola Gratia
Lutherans tend to consider these superfluous.
- Solus Christus, and
- Soli Deo Gloria
It’s worth noting too, that with no real alteration of intent or definition, Catholics can and should gladly embrace three of the five.
Speaking of Mary, I found this post on another thread. Is this view widely held in the RCC?:Honestly, i think that it is more because they did not want to seem “Catholic” anymore. That one sola created the ability to claim that we worship saints and Mary
Is that “trite rhetoric” or what?..The problem is that if they miss #1 it doesn’t matter what they believe about the rest. Satan knows all those doctrines are true. He just doesn’t cling to Christ alone for his salvation (and of course can’t, because God will not draw him to himself.)
Beats me…without any verifiable linkage or alliteration to source, its little more than a bunch of purple words.Speaking of Mary, I found this post on another thread. Is this view widely held in the RCC?:
The forgotten Sola.
Why did the Reformists think it was necessary to include this?
Well, sir, let me see if I can do the near -impossible and improve your astounding understanding…There can, in fact be more than one ‘sola’ Sola Scriptura would be making a statement about the one and only authority. Sola Fide would be making a statement about the one and only act necessary for salvation. I won’t confuse you with a third example. Ponder this for a while and the logic will come to you, even if the Light doesn’t.Is that “trite rhetoric” or what?..
My oh my oh my…it would seem that some people have little or no “literary” training or studies in foreign languages…
The word “SOLA” has a particular meaning…
It means “alone”…and given that there are so many different “solas”, it seems that someone was deeply confused.
Multiple “solas” = an “oxymoron”. Afterall, How many “only’s” can you have??
Whoa! Bless you my Brother.Well, sir, let me see if I can do the near -impossible and improve your astounding understanding…There can, in fact be more than one ‘sola’ Sola Scriptura would be making a statement about the one and only authority. Sola Fide would be making a statement about the one and only act necessary for salvation. I won’t confuse you with a third example. Ponder this for a while and the logic will come to you, even if the Light doesn’t.
Nice try…but your twisting of the meanings of words doesn’t fly any better than "lead ducks’ in a pond of quicksand.Well, sir, let me see if I can do the near -impossible and improve your astounding understanding…There can, in fact be more than one ‘sola’ Sola Scriptura would be making a statement about the one and only authority. Sola Fide would be making a statement about the one and only act necessary for salvation. I won’t confuse you with a third example. Ponder this for a while and the logic will come to you, even if the Light doesn’t.
Nah-na-na, hey-hey, nice try, but no saleWhoa! Bless you my Brother.