S
Stephentlig
Guest
could someone explain to me these two things?
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
Sola Scripturacould someone explain to me these two things?
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0507bt.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp
Sola Fide
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710chap.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306clas.asp
M
mmmcounts
Guest
Nice. Catholic tracts written in opposition of Protestant doctrines. Well, I guess we should have it from both sides. That’s fair. This is what people have to say when they actually believe these doctrines.
desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2005/1282_Thoughts_on_the_Sufficiency_of_Scripture_What_It_Does_and_Doesnt_Mean/
reclaimingthemind.org/content/Parchmentandpen/In-Defense-of-Sola-Scriptura.pdf
homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aahsolascrp.htm
bringyou.to/apologetics/a60.htm
media.thirdmill.org/mp3-16/Ross_Rom4_1to25.mp3
media.thirdmill.org/mp3-16/Ross_Rom4.mp3
One of those is a fun little debate. That one might be of greatest assistance to you.
There’s plenty more, but this should do for now.
A
Apryl
Guest
Wow… talk about opening up an OLD thread!
In answer to the OP on this one:
Sola Scriptura is the belief that every thing that is important for salvatation comes from scripture, and ONLY from scripture.
Sola Fide is the belief that all you have to do in order to attain salvation is to believe.
(Both of thise ideas are in opposition to Church teaching, btw)
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
There isn’t a consistent “Protestant” view on the definitions, being that Protestants don’t adhere to common doctrine all the time. However, here are some of the commonly held views that I have come across in voluminous conversations with Protestants.
Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Scriptura
- Some say that all of divine revelation is contained in Scripture alone.
- Some don’t take a position on whether or not there is divine revelation beyond Scripture, but state that Scripture is “all you need” to attain salvation.
- Often, someone will personify Scripture by saying it is the “final authority” on all matters theological.
- Some of the more formal modern Reformed Theologians, Presbyterians, or Evangelicals might appeal to the first chapter of the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith (Chap 1, #1) states:
Sola Fide
- Some say that once a person makes the assent to believe that Jesus died for his sins, he is saved and cannot lose his salvation from that point forward. Works do nothing for you one way or another. They merely are an outward sign that you are a true Christian.
- Some will come closer to the Catholic position and agree that true faith works through love and obedience…the concepts are inseparable. This is the brand of “faith alone” that the Pope affirmed recently. (The Westminster Confession affirms that faith is “alone” yet “not alone”:*Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.*Although awkwardly worded, I think this is compatible with the Catholic position.
- Some will say that only faith justifies, but doing good works can sanctify you, make you holier (although you would still be saved if you did not).
M
mmmcounts
Guest
Hm, didn’t think of it, but this might be the oldest thread I’ve bumped like this. I didn’t look carefully at the date and somehow thought it was a pretty recent thread. Too bad the person who started it might not ever wind up seeing this.Wow… talk about opening up an OLD thread!
In answer to the OP on this one:
Sola Scriptura is the belief that every thing that is important for salvatation comes from scripture, and ONLY from scripture.
Sola Fide is the belief that all you have to do in order to attain salvation is to believe.
(Both of thise ideas are in opposition to Church teaching, btw)
Your summary of SS wasn’t bad. For a summary that short, that’s probably the most important detail to include.
I’m afraid I don’t agree with your assessment of sola fide, though. See if you can find out why by taking my nifty poll.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=411086
A
Apryl
Guest
That would suggest that popularity would define fact… which I don’t agree with.
Besides, the people taking the poll are those who speak up on CAF… another way to skew the results.
I’m not saying that anyone has this belief. I am only stating that the idea of Sola Fide means that. I haven’t seen any one on these boards profess to agree with ‘Sola Fide’
W
wmscott
Guest
Who is John Piper, C. Michael Patton, A. A. Hodge, Julie Staples, and The Third Millennium Ministries (IIIM), an Evangelical Christian parachurch ministry and why should anyone put their faith in them. What ever happened to the ECFs and the Doctors of the Church? Why should anyone put their faith in someone that comes along 2000 years later and say that the ECFs and the Doctors of the Church go it all wrong.
I will put forth two links :
**ECFs
**
Doctors of the Church
M
mmmcounts
Guest
Actually, my intent was to suggest that I defined sola fide in the course of creating the poll. I even labeled it.That would suggest that popularity would define fact… which I don’t agree with.
The results mean absolutely nothing. And I assure you, I did not guide you to the nifty poll in order to see the results. The purpose was to show you where I included a nifty definition of “sola fide” within the nifty poll.Besides, the people taking the poll are those who speak up on CAF… another way to skew the results.
Do I count as “one on these boards?”I haven’t seen any one on these boards profess to agree with ‘Sola Fide’
M
mmmcounts
Guest
Pastor of a church in Minnesota and author of many books that you can read in their entirety (along with books from many other sources) at desiringgod.org/. His kid was a couple of years ahead of me at the same college I went to.
A good apologist, though not nearly as visible as Piper. I don’t know much about him personally.
He was the principal of Princeton Seminary in the late 19th century. He was a well-known Presbyterian leader.
A woman who does a pretty good job of debating serious theological issues.
Answered your own question on that one.
Put your faith in no one but Jesus; all others can only point the way to Him.
They lived, they taught, they defended the faith, and they died. That’s the overall summary.
Number one, these aren’t people who say the ECF’s and Doctors of the Church “got it all wrong.” I’ll come up with quotes and references if you can’t just go with that. Number two, no one should come along and say “put your faith in this person or that person” unless the person you are referring to is Jesus Christ.Why should anyone put their faith in someone that comes along 2000 years later and say that the ECFs and the Doctors of the Church go it all wrong.
Thanks for the links. Can I ask why you provided them?
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Here are two good resources:could someone explain to me these two things?
catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/10/2-timothy-314-17-and-sola-scriptura.html
catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/12/protestantism-refuted-outline.html
W
wmscott
Guest
I think you miss my point, I looked at the links you provided to came up with the names. These are the folks you put up against the ECFs, Doctors of the Church, and the CC as a whole. Are you serious? Really? You provide these individuals as proof of Scripture Alone and Faith Alone, that it is scriptural, when in fact it is not, and these ECFs, Doctors of the Church, and the CC has taught something different and that teaching has stood the test of time and heresies for over 2000 years. Just because you provided some johnny come latel’s who can debate well or argue a fallacy with conviction does not make them right.Matt 24:11 Many false prophets will arise and deceive many; **2 Cor 11:12-13 **And what I do I will continue to do, in order to end this pretext of those who seek a pretext for being regarded as we are in the mission of which they boast. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ.
You say “They lived, they taught, they defended the faith, and they died.” when in fact it is much, much more. Funny how easily you dismiss them. The reason I provided the links is to illustrate how these ECFs and Doctors of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit as Christ promised, faithfully preserved, defined, and were martyred for Christ’s Church and for Christianity. The credentials of the ECFs and Doctors of the Church are well established and validated because they have been tempered by the Holy Spirit. Finally the ECFs and Doctors of the Church always, and I do mean always, lead us to Christ.
So why would you want to put forth some folks who espouse differing theologies regarding what Christ and His Church has taught, unless you are telling me that they are tell you what you want to hear regarding your own personal brand of theology. Is this the case?
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
.
PROTESTANT response (if I’m so allowed):
Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, teaching or belief. It is a praxis, a practice. It is the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans in the evaluation of teachings.
Now, as SOME Protestants express the praxis, they occasionally speak of WHY they embrace Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans - but while related, such is not a part of the praxis. And SOME Protestants will speak of hermeneutical principles and arbitrative processes - but again, such is not the praxis (however related such MIGHT be).
Let’s say Bob the Builder is to build a wall six feet tall. He is finished. He claims the wall is six feet tall. Thus, the position to be normed is whether the wall is what is claimed - is it six feet tall? This is called “norming”
Norming has two fundamental aspects. The first is the mutual embrace of WHAT will serve as the rule (“straight edge”) / canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (the norm that norms). Perhaps we agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. In that case, it becomes the rule/canon/norma normans. The second aspect is the arbitration - HOW will it be determined if the position (the wall and its claimed heighth of six feet) “measures up” to the measuring stick (the canon/rule/norma normans)? Sola Scriptura addresses the first issue in that. It is the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans.
There’s nothing unique in this, in all disciplines, there is the issue of norming. My degree is in physics. If I am to submit a paper to a respected physics journal, it is NOT assumed that if Josiah writes it, it MUST ergo be infallible/unaccountable so if I say it ergo it’s true and correct. Nope. I will need to submit my position to the norma normans in physics (math and repeatable, observable, objective laborative evidence) - and others will hold up every detail of my paper to that rule/canon in the arbitive process (arbitration). The most sound norma normans is typically the most objective (knowable by all, alterable by none), the most universally and historically accepted, including by all parties involved, the most OUTSIDE all the parties involved.
Sola Gratia/ Solus Christus/ Sola Fide/ Soli Deo Gloria is ONE (inseparable, united) doctrine. Salvation (in terms of the forgiveness of sins and friendship with God) is ours via the unmerted love/mercy/grace of God (Sola Gratia) in view of the work of Christ who is THE Savior (Solus Christus) which is made ours by faith in Christ (Sola Fide) - all the work of God and to His glory (Soli Deo Gloria). Sola Fide means that saving faith is in the Savior, Jesus Christ - and such is a “busy, active thing” (Luther) revealed in tangible love and good works in obedience to Christ. Faith that is not in Christ or void of love/works is not associated to/with salvation (in the sense above).
.
PROTESTANT response (if I’m so allowed):
Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, teaching or belief. It is a praxis, a practice. It is the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans in the evaluation of teachings.
Now, as SOME Protestants express the praxis, they occasionally speak of WHY they embrace Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans - but while related, such is not a part of the praxis. And SOME Protestants will speak of hermeneutical principles and arbitrative processes - but again, such is not the praxis (however related such MIGHT be).
Let’s say Bob the Builder is to build a wall six feet tall. He is finished. He claims the wall is six feet tall. Thus, the position to be normed is whether the wall is what is claimed - is it six feet tall? This is called “norming”
Norming has two fundamental aspects. The first is the mutual embrace of WHAT will serve as the rule (“straight edge”) / canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (the norm that norms). Perhaps we agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. In that case, it becomes the rule/canon/norma normans. The second aspect is the arbitration - HOW will it be determined if the position (the wall and its claimed heighth of six feet) “measures up” to the measuring stick (the canon/rule/norma normans)? Sola Scriptura addresses the first issue in that. It is the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans.
There’s nothing unique in this, in all disciplines, there is the issue of norming. My degree is in physics. If I am to submit a paper to a respected physics journal, it is NOT assumed that if Josiah writes it, it MUST ergo be infallible/unaccountable so if I say it ergo it’s true and correct. Nope. I will need to submit my position to the norma normans in physics (math and repeatable, observable, objective laborative evidence) - and others will hold up every detail of my paper to that rule/canon in the arbitive process (arbitration). The most sound norma normans is typically the most objective (knowable by all, alterable by none), the most universally and historically accepted, including by all parties involved, the most OUTSIDE all the parties involved.
Sola Gratia/ Solus Christus/ Sola Fide/ Soli Deo Gloria is ONE (inseparable, united) doctrine. Salvation (in terms of the forgiveness of sins and friendship with God) is ours via the unmerted love/mercy/grace of God (Sola Gratia) in view of the work of Christ who is THE Savior (Solus Christus) which is made ours by faith in Christ (Sola Fide) - all the work of God and to His glory (Soli Deo Gloria). Sola Fide means that saving faith is in the Savior, Jesus Christ - and such is a “busy, active thing” (Luther) revealed in tangible love and good works in obedience to Christ. Faith that is not in Christ or void of love/works is not associated to/with salvation (in the sense above).
.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Nothing stands alone…
Faith cannot exist alone.
The written word or Bible cannot stand alone.
Nothing stands alone…, nothing
Only love will last in heaven, but that is another topic.
Faith cannot exist alone.
The written word or Bible cannot stand alone.
Nothing stands alone…, nothing
Only love will last in heaven, but that is another topic.
M
mmmcounts
Guest
I’m familiar with the argument. Now please pay attention to the response, as I am now going to reiterate something I already posted. First, I deny that the people referenced in these sources are “put up against” the ECF’s, Doctors of the Church, or the early Catholic Church. I would rather put the “later Catholic Church” (from the high middle ages to the era of the Reformation) “up against” these earlier sources. I would encourage you to look into the specific exchanges between Martin Luther and the people brought against him by the Vatican. If you do, you’ll see a number of examples of teaching by Luther’s opponents that is not in accordance with what the CC teaches now, nor it is in agreement with what Christ’s church taught in the first four to six centuries of its existence (a time period that largely excludes any meaningful participation by Rome).
That’s ironic. In the process of making such a statement with the inherent assumption that one thing or another is a fallacy, you are making a fallacious argument. I believe this would belong to the broader category of begging the question; I think it winds up falling in with the more specific class of “complex question.” That’s because you’ve unfairly concluded that these people “argue a fallacy with conviction.” I’m also noticing that you’ve built this fallacy on the premise of an appeal to biased authority. It’s a bit like approaching a question of whether or not fraternities are a good thing for a college campus, and in seeking out authorities on the matter, you interview all the frat presidents and ignore anyone else who might know something about the matter in question. When you operate in this way, I can certainly see why you would suppose that John Piper, A. A. Hodge, and Julie Stanton are in opposition to the earliest teaching of the Christian church. It’s easy to make sweeping generalizations about people when you haven’t done anything more than read their names.
I love irony.
And by the way, you’re not leaving me much choice here- I must conclude that you’re either unfamiliar with the things taught by the ECF’s or you’re extremely unaware of the things that were taught by the CC at the time of the Reformation. I’m betting it’s the second one.
I gave very similar answers when you asked for the identities of C. Michael Patton and A. A. Hodge. You didn’t conclude that I was dismissing them. Instead, you came to the conclusion that I trust them in about the same way that you trust the authority of your tradition.
Good, I’m glad you’ve studied their teaching. Now all you need to do is study the teaching that Luther denied. You’ll see a lot of differences- contradictions, in fact. Go ahead, take a look.
No, in more ways than one, that is not the case.
If you’re going to refuse to look at the material I provided in any way beyond finding out the names of the people who are responsible for it, I would encourage you to find something better to do with your time and stop wasting mine.
W
wmscott
Guest
My point of reference is this: that Catholic Church and faith is the Body of Christ. It is the Church that is Apostolic, Perpetual, Infallible, and Authoritative. It is the One, Hole, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Pillar of Truth. That the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects it from the gates of Hell. That Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium are all a product of Christ’s will and commandments.
I do not believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. I believe that there is nothing with regards to Christ and His Church that is tainted. Are there sinners in the Church and its hierarchy, yes absolutely, we all are sinners. There is no way around that one. Is the Christian Catholic faith as Christ established, without any of the sins or heresies that have tried and failed to crumble the faith, the way Christ wanted it to be, yes I believe it so. It was not the Catholic Church that needed to be Reformed, it was the sinners within.
So I really do not understand why you would want me, a Catholic convert who has lived the lie of the other side, only to rehash over the same old stuff that I have lived and came out of. I do understand from your Protestant position and that you have to try to cast doubt in the minds of Catholics about their faith, been there, done that.
So it’s no problem, I’ll stop wasting your time an mine. Peace.
M
mmmcounts
Guest
W
wmscott
Guest
R
Ruthie_again
Guest
Here is a good answer to "Sola Scriptura:
“The Protestant theory, on the contrary, which stakes a man’s salvation on the possession of the Bible … imputes to Almighty God a total indifference to the salvation of the countless souls that passed hence to eternity for 1500 years, and indeed ends logically in the blasphemous conclusion that our Blessed Lord failed to provide an adequate means of conveying to men in every age the knowledge of His truth.”
From Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by The Right Rev. HENRY G. GRAHAM
Acts 7:54-60; was Stephen saved? He died before one word of the New Testament had been written down. And Jn 21:25? Our Apostolic church has passed down things Jesus taught, that never were written down.
As for “Sola Fide,” it has so many interpretations that it is difficult to discuss. From those that think it means they can say the “Jesus Prayer,” and then sin with impunity (yes, I’ve met one or two), all the way up to those who define faith as believing what Jesus taught and doing what He told us, there are nearly as many interpretations as there are denominations.
So I always want to hear my fellow debater’s definition of it, before I answer them.
God bless you,
Ruthie
“The Protestant theory, on the contrary, which stakes a man’s salvation on the possession of the Bible … imputes to Almighty God a total indifference to the salvation of the countless souls that passed hence to eternity for 1500 years, and indeed ends logically in the blasphemous conclusion that our Blessed Lord failed to provide an adequate means of conveying to men in every age the knowledge of His truth.”
From Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by The Right Rev. HENRY G. GRAHAM
Acts 7:54-60; was Stephen saved? He died before one word of the New Testament had been written down. And Jn 21:25? Our Apostolic church has passed down things Jesus taught, that never were written down.
As for “Sola Fide,” it has so many interpretations that it is difficult to discuss. From those that think it means they can say the “Jesus Prayer,” and then sin with impunity (yes, I’ve met one or two), all the way up to those who define faith as believing what Jesus taught and doing what He told us, there are nearly as many interpretations as there are denominations.
So I always want to hear my fellow debater’s definition of it, before I answer them.
God bless you,
Ruthie
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
- Status