Solas of the Protestant Reformation

[PerryJ]

Sola scriptura does not ignore Christian history and tradition; rather it views scripture as the final authority on matters of doctrine. It is self-authenticating and clear.

How is it self authenticating if it is not in Scripture?

 

[KingAlfred]

“I think we should spend time on the solas of grace alone…”

No offense, but I’m sure you would like to focus on that sub-theme, within the greater themes of ‘sola scriptura’ and salvation by faith alone. That’s very Protestant – to focus on only part of the Bible, to defend the theory and practice of ‘sola scriptura’. Sorry…but it was typical of Luther and Calvin, both intelligent but irrational Christians. How can one promote ‘sola scriptura’ and salvation by faith alone, when the Bible itself says the works are mandatory, as well, for salvation?

 

[Reformed]

“I think we should spend time on the solas of grace alone…”

No offense, but I’m sure you would like to focus on that sub-theme, within the greater themes of ‘sola scriptura’ and salvation by faith alone. That’s very Protestant – to focus on only part of the Bible, to defend the theory and practice of ‘sola scriptura’. Sorry…but it was typical of Luther and Calvin, both intelligent but irrational Christians. How can one promote ‘sola scriptura’ and salvation by faith alone, when the Bible itself says the works are mandatory, as well, for salvation?

I’m not sure who you are quoting. The most important sola to focus on is Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”). Do you agree with my statement? Why or why not? :juggle:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“I think we should spend time on the solas of grace alone…”

No offense, but I’m sure you would like to focus on that sub-theme, within the greater themes of ‘sola scriptura’ and salvation by faith alone. That’s very Protestant – to focus on only part of the Bible, to defend the theory and practice of ‘sola scriptura’. Sorry…but it was typical of Luther and Calvin, both intelligent but irrational Christians. How can one promote ‘sola scriptura’ and salvation by faith alone, when the Bible itself says the works are mandatory, as well, for salvation?

The “sola” (alone) mades this somewhat confusing. Putting them together is contradictory to their name. Remove the word “sola” and you come closer to truth than anyone could argue.

• Christ
• Glory to God
• Grace
• Faith
• Scriptures

I’ve told this to the OP, on another forum, that if you add Sola Ecclesia you probably wouldn’t find much to debate, from Catholics anyway. Adding the Church would be adding the sacramental traditions.

What some may not realize is, what separated brethren means to the Catholic Church. That is, Protestants have a “part” of that which came from the Church that Christ started.

During the reformation, Martin Luther and other reformers after him took those things he had received from the Church; Christ, Grace, Faith, Glory to God and Scriptures.

It was through Martin Luther’s and other reformer’s private interpretations that perceived differences came about.

I use the word perceived because Catholics accept the one time sacrifice of Christ for the sins of all. It is through Grace that we have Faith of salvation, Glory to God! We learn this through Scriptures given and preserved by the Holy Spirit protected Church Christ gave us. Isn’t this close to what Protestants believe?

Being the parts that Protestants received came from the Catholic Church, it is our hope that they have received that which is necessary for salvation through Christ’s mercy.

Since what Protestants received are a part of what came from the Church, Catholics believe the fullness is still at the Holy Spirit protected Church. We also believe it was Christ’s desire for there to be one Church:

Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Catholics believe Christ is the head of that Church. We believe Christ knew there had to be order in that Church on earth and he chose Peter to built His Church upon:

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Christ prayed for us to be unified as one through His Church as evident in His prayer for the Apostles and all mankind:

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
Joh 17:20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
Joh 17:23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

I mentioned above that Christ knew there had to be order in His Church and therefore built His Church upon Peter. Think about it. Can there be order through thousands of denominations, led by as many people? Can we become perfectly one through thousands of denominations, led by as many people? These are geniune questions and not innuendos of anyone being lost when it comes to salvation. It just seems, in my opinion, if we were all perfectly one, it would be easier to evangelize non-believers.

Any Christian can bring the basic message of Christ to a non-believer, it’s more difficult to remove confusion of which is the “true” Church when there are thousands claiming the truth. Can a non-believer see we all are proclaiming the same truth? How much time would it take to explain doctrinal differences? While we may have time with some non-believers through work, school or other life relationships, we do not have the luxury of time with all non-believers. Wouldn’t it be a shame to have even a few fall between the cracks?

This is why we need to, first, find what we have in common before discussing differences. Differences maybe no more than misunderstandings of what we think about each other’s faiths. I know, from experience, that in most discussions on these forums, I hear from non-Catholics what Catholics believe. Most of what I hear are misunderstandings. Those misunderstandings, for what ever reason, are so ingrained that most non-Catholics deny or discard any explanations offered.

It’s very hard to have a real discussion when put into a position of defending your Church. Passions become inflamed and our human nature allows emotions take over. I’ll admit, I’m guilty of becoming emotionally involved at times and I pray often for a meek and humble heart.

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

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m not sure who you are quoting. The most important sola to focus on is Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”). Do you agree with my statement? Why or why not? :juggle:

Well, it would be nice to see you explain why or why not you believe your statement. Without your explanation, how can you expect anymore than a “yes” or a “no”?

I have addressed your original post and have tried to convey my thoughts on why it is most important not to try and divide up faith as all parts are most important, together. Please see my previous post.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[PerryJ]

I’m not sure who you are quoting. The most important sola to focus on is Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”). Do you agree with my statement? Why or why not? :juggle:

I have to admit that perhaps I do not understand the use of the term Glory to God alone. Catholics believe in giving all Glory to God. Everything starts and ends with God. Is there a belief that we do not believe this? Am I misunderstanding the point? Is Glory to God alone defined differently than it appears?

 

[TriuneUnity]

• Saint Jerome (374-419) - He denounced Jews as “Judaic serpents of whom Judas was the model”. In his The Jews in the Roman Empire (Les Juifs dan L’Empire Romain) [Is this really a work by Jerome, or a modern history?] he wrote: “The Jews seek nothing but to have children, possess riches and be healthy. They seek all earthly things, but think nothing of heavenly things; for this reason they are mercenaries.”
  • Saint John Chrysostom (c. 344 - 407) - wrote of the Jews and of Judaizers in eight homilies Adversus Judaeos, Against The Jews (or Against the Judaizers).[14]
  “Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? the whole day long will not be enough to give you an account of these things. But do their festivals have something solemn and great about them? They have shown that these, too, are impure.” (Homily I, VII, 1)
  “But before I draw up my battle line against the Jews, I will be glad to talk to those who are members of our own body, those who seem to belong to our ranks although they observe the Jewish rites and make every effort to defend them. Because they do this, as I see it, they deserve a stronger condemnation than any Jew.” (HOMILY IV, II, 4)
  “Are you Jews still disputing the question? Do you not see that you are condemned by the testimony of what Christ and the prophets predicted and which the facts have proved? But why should this surprise me? That is the kind of people you are. From the beginning you have been shameless and obstinate, ready to fight at all times against obvious facts.” (HOMILY V, XII, 1)

Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History records The Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, concerning the matters transacted at the Council, addressed to those Bishops who were not present:

"It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. ... Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. ... Let us ... studiously avoiding all contact with that evil way. ... For how can they entertain right views on any point who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. ... lest your pure minds should appear to share in the customs of a people so utterly depraved. ... Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord. ... no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews."[19]

So great … let’s have a whose ancient church fathers hated Jews more contest? Hey if anything some of the most important RCC church fathers hated the Jews with venom in their tongue. It’s easy to see where Luther got it from huh? Hey I guess I didn’t give up all Catholic practices after all.

Still want to continue down this road? Because I can assure you there’s more good stuff on the RCC. Oh and btw you still haven’t shown that Luther killed anyone?

Just in case you think I find this shocking, I knew about Luther’s feelings toward Jews. He first tried making overtures to them, but still doesn’t excuse his conduct. If anti-semitic rhetoric is the standard then no catholic church father will stand the test.

Of course, I find it more than interesting that the person who said this about Luther

You say Luther told the truth and nothing else. Is the following a truthful statement about Jews in your opinion?

Also said this

Luther chose the Palenstinian canon of the Old Testament because it was in Hebrew, the same language of those who persecuted our Lord.

What did Jesus say about logs in the eye?

 

[PerryJ]

Of course, I find it more than interesting that the person who said this about Luther

Also said this

What did Jesus say about logs in the eye?

TriuneUnity,

I have to first say that I always find your posts very well thought out and sincere. I don’t always agree with them; however, they are very insightful.

Someone posted the five solas. Do Lutherans believe in the five Solas? I believe you are Lutheran. Tell me if I am wrong.

 

[TriuneUnity]

TriuneUnity,

I have to first say that I always find your posts very well thought out and sincere. I don’t always agree with them; however, they are very insightful.

Someone posted the five solas. Do Lutherans believe in the five Solas? I believe you are Lutheran. Tell me if I am wrong.

Your posts as well, Perry. Though unfortunately I’ve not gotten the chance to respond to many of them.

Traditionally, we put emphasis on three of them; sola scriptura, sola fide, and solus Christus. Sola gratia and soli Deo gloria are part of our theology. The latter seems to be of particular emphasis in Reformed theology.

 

[cath2lic4ever]

Your posts as well, Perry. Though unfortunately I’ve not gotten the chance to respond to many of them.

Traditionally, we put emphasis on three of them; sola scriptura, sola fide, and solus Christus. Sola gratia and soli Deo gloria are part of our theology. The latter seems to be of particular emphasis in Reformed theology.

baffled sola scriptura means scripture alone right? plus adding another sola like fide, gratia, etc., then what happened to sola scriptura then? maybe sola whatever! reformed theology is wrong, i mean dead wrong. GOD bless & prayers to all!

 

[TriuneUnity]

baffled sola scriptura means scripture alone right? plus adding another sola like fide, gratia, etc., then what happened to sola scriptura then? maybe sola whatever! reformed theology is wrong, i mean dead wrong. GOD bless & prayers to all!

Not sure what your point is here. Can you clarify?

 

[cath2lic4ever]

Not sure what your point is here. Can you clarify?

when you say sola it means alone right? adding something to it would look like 1+1=1! wrong theology is wrong mathematics. you need to be precise to be right, just my 2cents! GOD bless & prayers to all!

 

[TriuneUnity]

when you say sola it means alone right? adding something to it would look like 1+1=1! wrong theology is wrong mathematics. you need to be precise to be right, just my 2cents! GOD bless & prayers to all!

Meaning that Scripture is the alone infallible revelation of God, yes. But I don’t see how that connects with your analogy of 1+1=1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course, I find it more than interesting that the person who said this about Luther

Also said this

What did Jesus say about logs in the eye?

Luther refused to use a Bible based on the language as if one was more holy than another. It’s irony that he chose the one in the language of those who persecuted the Lord as part of his justification of breaking away from the Church Christ started. Does pointing out that irony mean that we should kill them all? Certainly not what I was saying and I’m sorry you interpreted it that way.

Luther on the other hand was quite clear about his feelings towards Jews. This was only posted in direct response to what a poster said that didn’t seem correct.

"We are at fault in not slaying them."

In response, I received the “list” of sinful acts of men throughout the Church’s history with a challenge to list each other’s wrongs by men, which you seem to find ok by quoting it again.

For the fifth time in this thread alone, I admit there were wrongs committed by men of the Church. If all you want to do is post sinful acts of men, then that is your choice.

I have apologized for the apparent shock one displayed about learning some history on Martin Luther as it appeared it was clearly upsetting to them. I have admitted I can be guilty of becoming emotional when put in the position of defending my Church. I am human and not above sin, I admit it.

In my post #163 I did my best to address the topics of this thread as charitability as I could through much reflection before clicking post reply. It has not been responded too.

Now do we discuss the topic of the thread or do you all want to continue the ad hominem game? I am only interested in the discussion myself.

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

 

[TriuneUnity]

Luther refused to use a Bible based on the language as if one was more holy than another. It’s irony that he chose the one in the language of those who persecuted the Lord as part of his justification of breaking away from the Church Christ started. Does pointing out that irony mean that we should kill them all? Certainly not what I was saying and I’m sorry you interpreted it that way.

Luther didn’t advocate killing them either. That doesn’t make his statements correct. Luther based his translation on the Hebrew because it’s the language it was written in. Need it be stated that Jesus also spoke the same language? So you’re argument about persecution is patently non-sensical. I don’t interpret it as anti-Semitic, but I can easily see how one could do so. To criticize Luther for his anti-Semitic writings and then state that we shouldn’t translate Scripture from the Hebrew because the Jews persecuted Christ is an obvious hypocrisy and is a case of you attacking Luther for the same mindset you yourself have demonstrated.

 

[cath2lic4ever]

Meaning that Scripture is the alone infallible revelation of God, yes. But I don’t see how that connects with your analogy of 1+1=1

based on you post #168

Traditionally, we put emphasis on three of them; sola scriptura, sola fide, and solus Christus. Sola gratia and soli Deo gloria are part of our theology. The latter seems to be of particular emphasis in Reformed theology.

what’s more baffling is your last sentence which says “the latter seems to be of particular emphasis in reformed theology”. it’s seems to me that you guys are in transition, don’t you get tired of reform, reform, reform? just a piece of advice, do not be afraid and leave it all to GOD, if you truly believe in him you’ll be in good hands. GOD bless & prayers to all!

 

[MagicKirk]

Traditionally, we put emphasis on three of them; sola scriptura, sola fide, and solus Christus.

Hello TriuneUnity. In regard to sola fide, how is 1 Peter 1:17 reconciled to the concept?

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: (KJV)

Thanks

 

[sola_scriptura]

Of course, I find it more than interesting that the person who said this about Luther

Also said this

What did Jesus say about logs in the eye?

You attributed quotes to me that were not my own? I said the part about the anti-Semitic tendencies of many early church fathers, but the two quotes after that were not from me …

 

[TriuneUnity]

You attributed quotes to me that were not my own? I said the part about the anti-Semitic tendencies of many early church fathers, but the two quotes after that were not from me …

Sorry, I wasn’t attributing them to you. Didn’t mean for it to come across that way. I did not name the poster involved. He responded on his own.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Luther didn’t advocate killing them either. That doesn’t make his statements correct. Luther based his translation on the Hebrew because it’s the language it was written in. Need it be stated that Jesus also spoke the same language? So you’re argument about persecution is patently non-sensical. I don’t interpret it as anti-Semitic, but I can easily see how one could do so. To criticize Luther for his anti-Semitic writings and then state that we shouldn’t translate Scripture from the Hebrew because the Jews persecuted Christ is an obvious hypocrisy and is a case of you attacking Luther for the same mindset you yourself have demonstrated.

We have a difference of opinion on whether Luther’s words advocated or condoned killing Jews. I am willing to discuss it further if that’s your choice. I have held back posting what history has to say about the influence of his antisemitic writings had on the 20th century.

Jesus spoke Aramaic and mostly used Hebrew to reference Old Testament scriptures. Greek was the common language in those times and that leaves me to assume Jesus also spoke Greek. Latin was also quite common as the area was under the control of the Romans. The Greek translation was primarily used for over 1000 years. What reason did Luther have in choosing differently?

I’d prefer to discuss the solas since it is the topic of this thread, if we can get past our differences of opinion on this subject or at the very least, leave it behind us.

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