Solas of the Protestant Reformation

[Reformed]

It’s a Biblical statement? Where can I read this in the Bible then?

You could have typed the scripture reference just as easy as typing that you have answered it. You did the same evasive manuvers on the other site.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

Can’t you see my hidden agenda? I’m trying to get you to search the scriptures for yourself to see if what Rome says is true?

2 Peter 1

Christ’s Glory and the Prophetic Word

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, [9] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Reformed]

LOL you guys are funny. that was a quick discussion! LOL

Here is a challenge for you deborahaz,

Since you are a new convert, please let me know how you decide what is true revelation from God. Do you determine spiritual truth by what the Roman Catholic Church tells you what is true? About 500 years ago, the church split because Christians believed that God speaks authoritatively through the Holy Bible as compared to what the Roman Catholic leaders told the people what is true. The same principle applies today. The Mormon Church makes a very similar claim as the Roman Catholic Church. So why do you believe the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church and not the Mormon Church leaders? Please study lds.org and compare the Mormon claim with the Roman Catholic claim. Both institutions claim apostolic succession, and are dependent on this idea. I believe spiritual truth is defined within the Holy Bible alone through the illuminating work of God the Holy Spirt. God will teach you progressive truth through your Christian walk primarily through the scriptures.

 

[Reformed]

Anyone who researchs the history of the Bible, the Church and the tradition, with open eyes, is going to be Catholic.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

I believe all regenerate Christians are catholic. There is a catholic (universal) church which is the new humanity that has been chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1). However, you will never find the concept of a Roman Catholic Church in the Scriptures. Being Roman Catholic will not save you from the wrath of God, and the coming day of judgement. Christ is the Savior and not a religious institution.

 

[Reformed]

Yet you still don’t respond to my posts addressing your interpretation of scriptures referencing the spoken word as the written word.

Now, this body of Christ you say Protestants have. How do you reconcile thousands of denominations with different doctrines based on someone’s private interpretation of scripture?

Again, I have addressed this with lots of scriptures stating that Christ and the Apostles taught the Church should be one. Again, you don’t respond to those arguments.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

The body of Christ is not exclusively Protestant. There are Protestants, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics who have not been in-grafted into the body of Christ, because they have not been born from above. On the other hand, the true body of Christ includes regenerate Christians who happen to worship in a Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox church and some regenerate believers even being unchurched. Do you seem to agree, why or why not?

Your separated Protestant brethren,

Reformed

 

[Reformed]

Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)

Soli Deo gloria is the teaching that all glory is to be due to God alone, since salvation is accomplished solely through his will and action — not only the gift of the all-sufficient atonement of Jesus on the cross but also the gift of faith in that atonement, created in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit. The reformers believed that human beings—even saints canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, the popes, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy—are not worthy of the glory that was accorded them. That is that one should not exalt such humans for their good works, but rather praise and give glory to God who is the author and perfecter of these people and their good works.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas#Soli_Deo_gloria_.28.22glory_to_God_alone.22.29

Let’s try to discuss the solas in reverse order. So why do you agree or disgree with this particular sola? Glory to God alone should be something that all Christians should united over, correct?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Primacy of Peter was not temporary. Having authority to bind and loose on earth, and promised it would be bound and loosed in heaven, was full authority.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

Let me elaborate further. Peter’s role does extend beyond his lifetime, however, it was not envisioned to manifest into primacy at Rome or a Pope heading the church.

Peter’s job was first to mediate between different Christian groups. Then as he worked with other Apostles to build the church, to ensure it’s foundation was built on proper ground (doctrine).

This work is memorialized by Scripture. No doctrine written in Scripture was written without at least the approval of Peter, whether express or implied.

Paul wanted to eliminate works all together, while James wanted to preserve Jewish ritualistic custom and impose these same rules on the Gentiles. Paul wound up dominating but not without some concessions. These concessions were mediated by Peter.

When Jesus said “bound and loose” it was doctrine He was referring to. In other words but for Peter we would have had one group obeying the Levitical code and another relying on faith alone. What ended up happening, because of Peter, is we understand that faith must be followed by reinforcing that faith, through works – things like worship, fellowship, bible study, charity, missionary work, good conduct, etc.

These doctrines are what “bind and loose” – Irenaeus was wrong (about many things, not just Roman supremacy, but also about Roman supremacy).

When I hear the RCC argument of how we (Protestants) somehow dilute the importance of Peter (or Mary) by our doctrines, it’s such a straw man argument that I frankly cringe. We fully acknowledge the role of Peter, because we know that the word was administered by him. Christ left him with the task of ensuring sound doctrine (and that His message would be properly conveyed to mankind); so we memorialize Peter’s role when we read and obey Scripture – which for me is every day.

When God saw the church going astray, he made sure the devil would not prevail against it – He gave us Martin Luther to do the job.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Can’t you see my hidden agenda? I’m trying to get you to search the scriptures for yourself to see if what Rome says is true?

2 Peter 1

Christ’s Glory and the Prophetic Word

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, [9] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Still no evidence of scriptural support of sola scriptura?

So far in our responses to each other, I have supplied multiple scriptures supporting my arguments. You don’t seem to have many to produce. Maybe you should be spending time reading the scriptures, as you say, for yourself.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[PerryJ]

Can’t you see my hidden agenda? I’m trying to get you to search the scriptures for yourself to see if what Rome says is true?

2 Peter 1

Christ’s Glory and the Prophetic Word

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, [9] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

What version of scriptures are you referring to? Did you know that in the 1600s a Protestant actually found of 30,000 variations within scripture. I am not referring to misspellings etc. I am referring to actual variations to scripture. Most Protestant scriptures have not been corrected for these errors. You place all of your faith on books of the Bible that do not read as they did when they were first created. To a Catholic we have tradition and the magesterium. We have the Holy Spirit protecting our Faith. You have personal interpretation based on a book changed over and again to fit the culture of the times.

I am also curious why you read the Bible. It is a Catholic book. It was defined by the Catholic religion from 50 Gospels, 22 books of acts and numerous epsitles. Did your faith look at all the books that existed and define the Bible. They did not. They took what was provided them by the Faith. Why didn’t your faith include the Didache? Did you faith ever look to see if it should be included? If no why not. Because they accepted the authority of the Catholic Faith. Yet they do not accept us interpreting our own book of faith.

As Protestant did not look at all books to see which ones should be included in the Bible they did deny several books in their entirety and several partially. The only books thrown out though were books that did not meet their ideaology. Old Testament books that early Protestant Bibles showed 102 cross references between the New Testament and the Duetercanoncals books. 102 times Christ and the Apostles directly refered to the books that you no longer consider inspired because a man told you not to believe them.

If you truly want to follow only the word of the Lord you need to get the entire Bible in its correct form. Which you do not have.

 

[Reformed]

Psalm 18:2
The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

Psalm 62:7
On God rests my salvation and my glory; my mighty rock, my refuge is God.

I think all Christians know the rock is God alone. Why even tempt others to build Peter or the Roman Catholic institution as their rock? All Christians have to battle the idols of our hearts. Protestants also can develop religious idols of the heart too. I have to repent of my tendency to make Reformed Theology as my personal idol of the heart. In all honesty, Roman Catholic Christians tend to proclaim the Roman Catholic Church as compared to Christ as their hope. We should point people to Christ as our security and sufficiency, and not to our particular denomination. And yes, the Roman Catholic Church is a big denomination. Christ alone is our hope.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here is a challenge for you deborahaz,

Since you are a new convert, please let me know how you decide what is true revelation from God. Do you determine spiritual truth by what the Roman Catholic Church tells you what is true? About 500 years ago, the church split because Christians believed that God speaks authoritatively through the Holy Bible as compared to what the Roman Catholic leaders told the people what is true. The same principle applies today. The Mormon Church makes a very similar claim as the Roman Catholic Church. So why do you believe the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church and not the Mormon Church leaders? Please study lds.org and compare the Mormon claim with the Roman Catholic claim. Both institutions claim apostolic succession, and are dependent on this idea. I believe spiritual truth is defined within the Holy Bible alone through the illuminating work of God the Holy Spirt. God will teach you progressive truth through your Christian walk primarily through the scriptures.

Why the “challenge” game? You listed 5 solas you were going to provide scriptural support for, yet you have failed to do so?

Again with the Mormon, Catholic comparison, let me ask you do you see a connection with the Mormon faith and your Protestant beliefs or do you merely connect the two as an ad hominem statement?

Provide the scriptural support for sola scriptura, you said you were going to, or accept the fact that your creditability takes a hit in failing to do so.

God bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Reformed]

Why the “challenge” game? You listed 5 solas you were going to provide scriptural support for, yet you have failed to do so?

Again with the Mormon, Catholic comparison, let me ask you do you see a connection with the Mormon faith and your Protestant beliefs or do you merely connect the two as an ad hominem statement?

Provide the scriptural support for sola scriptura, you said you were going to, or accept the fact that your creditability takes a hit in failing to do so.

God bless,
Prodigal Son1

The solas of the Reformation covers all topics. The last sola covers our purpose in life! On this thread, we are taking all thing captive and making it obedient to Christ to the glory of God alone! Let’s start thinking God-centered thoughts together in our discussions!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The body of Christ is not exclusively Protestant. There are Protestants, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics who have not been in-grafted into the body of Christ, because they have not been born from above. On the other hand, the true body of Christ includes regenerate Christians who happen to worship in a Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox church and some regenerate believers even being unchurched. Do you seem to agree, why or why not?

Your separated Protestant brethren,

Reformed

Let me explain how they are considered separated. The Catholic Church has the fullness of Christ’s teachings. When the reforms and schisms took place, they took a “part” of the teachings with them, mostly a belief in Christ. They left behind sacred traditions, the Church and scriptural interpretations that had been considered by Holy Spirit guided men who canonized the Bible.

Still no scriptural support of sola scriptura? You have none, do you?

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)

Soli Deo gloria is the teaching that all glory is to be due to God alone, since salvation is accomplished solely through his will and action — not only the gift of the all-sufficient atonement of Jesus on the cross but also the gift of faith in that atonement, created in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit. The reformers believed that human beings—even saints canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, the popes, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy—are not worthy of the glory that was accorded them. That is that one should not exalt such humans for their good works, but rather praise and give glory to God who is the author and perfecter of these people and their good works.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas#Soli_Deo_gloria_.28.22glory_to_God_alone.22.29

Let’s try to discuss the solas in reverse order. So why do you agree or disgree with this particular sola? Glory to God alone should be something that all Christians should united over, correct?

Actually, try doing one argument at a time. You provide this to avoid providing support for sola scriptura as you claimed to begin with.

I am not being drawn into your game of distractions from what you said to begin with by entering into another “debate” until you finish where we’ve started.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Let me elaborate further. Peter’s role does extend beyond his lifetime, however, it was not envisioned to manifest into primacy at Rome or a Pope heading the church.

Peter’s job was first to mediate between different Christian groups. Then as he worked with other Apostles to build the church, to ensure it’s foundation was built on proper ground (doctrine).

This work is memorialized by Scripture. No doctrine written in Scripture was written without at least the approval of Peter, whether express or implied.

Paul wanted to eliminate works all together, while James wanted to preserve Jewish ritualistic custom and impose these same rules on the Gentiles. Paul wound up dominating but not without some concessions. These concessions were mediated by Peter.

When Jesus said “bound and loose” it was doctrine He was referring to. In other words but for Peter we would have had one group obeying the Levitical code and another relying on faith alone. What ended up happening, because of Peter, is we understand that faith must be followed by reinforcing that faith, through works – things like worship, fellowship, bible study, charity, missionary work, good conduct, etc.

These doctrines are what “bind and loose” – Irenaeus was wrong (about many things, not just Roman supremacy, but also about Roman supremacy).

When I hear the RCC argument of how we (Protestants) somehow dilute the importance of Peter (or Mary) by our doctrines, it’s such a straw man argument that I frankly cringe. We fully acknowledge the role of Peter, because we know that the word was administered by him. Christ left him with the task of ensuring sound doctrine (and that His message would be properly conveyed to mankind); so we memorialize Peter’s role when we read and obey Scripture – which for me is every day.

When God saw the church going astray, he made sure the devil would not prevail against it – He gave us Martin Luther to do the job.

Show me the scriptural basis for your belief that Peter’s role was limited as you say. (Even though no one has provided scriptural support for sola scriptura yet.)

He gave us Martin Luther to divide Christianity to the extent it’s been divided today? I’m not buying that. That’s confusion and God is not confusion. Confusion is more a tool of the fallen one.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[PerryJ]

When God saw the church going astray, he made sure the devil would not prevail against it – He gave us Martin Luther to do the job.

Did we not have a discussion on another subject and you stated that you do not follow all of Luther’s belief?

What I find interesting is that Protestants defend Luther yet many do not follow his doctrine. If he was the savior from the RCC why do so many Protestant’s refute his teachings. Just as Luther did they only accept what they want. As of the year 1600 there were already 297 Protestant denominations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Did we not have a discussion on another subject and you stated that you do not follow all of Luther’s belief?

What I find interesting is that Protestants defend Luther yet many do not follow his doctrine. If he was the savior from the RCC why do so many Protestant’s refute his teachings. Just as Luther did they only accept what they want. As of the year 1600 there were already 297 Protestant denominations.

Good point!

Rejecting part of Luther’s doctrines, and splitting off continuing with thousands of denominations, has the appearances of fitting doctrines to one’s lifestyle instead of submitting wholly to God.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[O.S.Luke]

It was Holy Spirit guided men of the Holy Spirit protected Church that the canonization took place. That’s how we all have the Bible today, except for the King James Version which Luther took great liberties with.

Luther died in the middle of the 1500’s. The 1st King James version didn’t come out until 1611.

How did Luther take great liberties with a Bible translation that was written 60+ years after his death?

Just curious.

O+

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Luther died in the middle of the 1500’s. The 1st King James version didn’t come out until 1611.

How did Luther take great liberties with a Bible translation that was written 60+ years after his death?

Just curious.

O+

Protestants prefer the King James Version of the Bible, most of those I know anyways. What version do you prefer? Does it include the deuterocanonicals?

Luther’s influences on scriptures went out with all translations after his “tamperings” with what was passed down through the Church. He removed the deuterocanonicals and added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28, hence the belief in faith alone excluding works required as supported by many other scriptures. How is it the King James Version has those changes but claims it was not influenced by Luther’s tamperings?

Do you deny the Catholic Church canonized the Bible and cared for it through the ages until Luther took the Bible and left the rest of the teachings of the Catholic Church behind? With that said, it is easy to find he took some teachings with him but through schisms since his reformation, those have been diluted.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[sola_scriptura]

Did we not have a discussion on another subject and you stated that you do not follow all of Luther’s belief?

What I find interesting is that Protestants defend Luther yet many do not follow his doctrine. If he was the savior from the RCC why do so many Protestant’s refute his teachings. Just as Luther did they only accept what they want. As of the year 1600 there were already 297 Protestant denominations.

I’m a reformed Protestant and while I find much in common with Luther I think Calvin developed theology further. In other words, Luther gave us a good foundation, by grace through faith . . . not by works or personal human endeavor (as Scripture states). That works proceed from faith is not refuted by Luther or Calvin, but rather in the first instance it is the grace of God that draws us.

The sacrifice of our Lord was made in propitiation & as a penal substitution for the punishment we deserve. Charging money for forgiveness, much less charging money to forgive the sins of dead relatives and remove them from purgatory was in no uncertain terms heretical – no matter how creatively this practice is framed by the revisionists. God gave us Luther for this task.

Luther never quite wanted to break from Rome, the choice was thrust upon him by the church. He naively thought that his complaints given up through his chain of command would be heeded and the heresies of men like Johann Tetzel (who was merely one of many) would be dealt with. Eventually Tetzel went to far for even Pope Leo’s taste, but his minions were never stopped from the basic practice of charging money to forgive sins, forgive sins not yet committed, and removing souls from purgatory.

This change required the reformation to reach its fullness, until the point Protestantism was creeping in their home territory – Italy itself. Then the church had two choices, reform or die, they smartly chose the former.

Then came Calvin, who was quite the logician and rigorous theologian. He took Luther’s doctrines to their logical end. Luther didn’t solely sit in a room and write (even though he was confined to his room for quite a while because the church was hunting him). He translated the Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew into German. He offered wonderful commentary. However, obviously work such as this is built on. Like engineering, we had to invent the wheel and the combustion engine before the car.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Protestants prefer the King James Version of the Bible, most of those I know anyways. What version do you prefer? Does it include the deuterocanonicals?

Nowhere close to all Protestants use the King James version - and it’s accuracy has been further questioned since the discovery of older biblical texts. I have one on the shelf, as I do about 10 other translations (including two Catholic translations, and the Hebrew and Greek texts). Any serious biblical study requires more than just one biblical text. I’d prefer to stick to the original languages of Hebrew and Koine Greek, but not everyone would agree.

But you’ve changed the question, Prodigal. I asked you how Luther could take liberties with a translation of the Bible that he never saw (at least, in his earthly life).

Do you deny the Catholic Church canonized the Bible and cared for it through the ages until Luther took the Bible and left the rest of the teachings of the Catholic Church behind?

History makes it clear that the bible was canonized long before the Reformation. I don’t have a beef with that. But that Luther left “the rest of the teachings of the Catholic Church behind” is not supportable by either history or doctrine.

With that said, it is easy to find he took some teachings with him but through schisms since his reformation, those have been diluted.

Well, make up your mind.

Btw… do you have an answer to my first question?

O+