Solas of the Protestant Reformation

[TriuneUnity]

Hello Triune Unity. Thank you for your response. I had thought that Sola Fide meant one is saved and judged only by faith. Is my understanding of the belief incorrect?

It would be incorrect from a Reformation theology perspective. Some evangelicals may hold we are judged by faith, but that isn’t historical Protestant (or biblical) teaching. The grounds of our justification before God is the perfect life of Christ. His righteousness is credited to us. Our sin and wickedness was credited to Him on the cross. Faith alone is the means by which we are given this crediting. If you think of it this way…you have a house with no plumbing, but there’s a well 100 yards away. To get the water from the well to the house you need a pipe. Well, we teach that faith is the pipe (means) by which the water of our justification (Christ) is brought to us (the house).

Rome teaches there are multiple pipes; works, penance, intercession, etc etc. We teach it is faith alone.

We are not judged based on our faith. This would make faith a work that pleases God and justifies us. It doesn’t. Christ does.

Finally, does your adherence to the concept create any disagreements with the following from the CCC?

Perseverance in faith

162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: "Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith."44 To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith;45 it must be “working through charity,” abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.

I wouldn’t disagree with anything said here as I do believe that faith must persevere to the end. We (Lutherans) reject OSAS emphatically (and the Calvinist doctrine as well). Faith can be lost. I would have no problem with the statement if Rome’s theology of Christ+something else wasn’t lurking in the background.

 

[PerryJ]

Luke 10:7: And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

1 Tim. 5:18: For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

By the fact that Peter is saying “the other scriptures” he is calling Paul’s writing scripture. If I said, “You really do not know how to fly that airplane, just like the people who can’t drive the other cars” wouldn’t make much sense, would it?

Concerning Luke and Tim, I do not know about these particular scriptures; however, one has to be careful when comparing scriptures in this style. Copyist often changed text to look like other text in scripture. They did this at a much later date. Some changes were intentional to support their personal beliefs, some because they wanted to make the Bible easier to read and understand. Some was caused from their limited ability to write and translate. This is especially true in the first couple of hundred years of translating. Copyist until Christianity was supported by Rome, and professional scribes were employed, tended to be the less educated. (This is not always the case.)

I would guess if one was to take different ancient texts of these two verses many would not use the same exact phrase. This doesn’t make it untrue. It leaves open that it may not be true.

Note that the Bibles we translate from are not originals. Many were written hundreds of years later. Many were written in different languages and from different areas within the world.

To make this statement takes a lot of scriptural authenticity; which, even very educated scholars often disagree on the correct text that should be used.

 

[PerryJ]

By the fact that Peter is saying “the other scriptures” he is calling Paul’s writing scripture. If I said, “You really do not know how to fly that airplane, just like the people who can’t drive the other cars” wouldn’t make much sense, would it?

If you are referring to 2 Peter many now believe that this is not authentically written by Peter. The writing styles are different and it refers to Jude if I remember correctly. Jude was writtten at a later date. The very fact that Peter is referring to Paul’s writing actually reinforces that it was not written by Peter.

Some have dated this writing at a much later date. Perhaps as late as when scripture was being defined by the Church. If true the author could have added this thought to 2 Peter.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Luke 10:7: And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

1 Tim. 5:18: For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

For the scripture says, “you shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out of the grain.” I believe they were referencing Old Testament scriptures.

There seems to be differences in the last part concerning the labourer, depending on which version of the Bible being used. The modern languages refer the same, but the Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and those translated from the Latin Vulgate state differences.

I’m looking into it more and would appreciate any other examples you might can offer.

**Deu 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out thy corn on the floor.

1Ti 5:18 For the scripture saith: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn: and, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Luk 10:7 And in the same house, remain, eating and drinking such things as they have: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Remove not from house to house. **

By the fact that Peter is saying “the other scriptures” he is calling Paul’s writing scripture. If I said, “You really do not know how to fly that airplane, just like the people who can’t drive the other cars” wouldn’t make much sense, would it?

St. Peter distinguishes between epistles and scriptures. The point he was making was the writings could be misinterpreted like the other scriptures.

**2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
**

I also provided a few other scriptures in that post referencing their own writings as epistles. Again, I do not believe they knew their writings, of instructions and corrections, to the individual Churches would one day be collected together and placed in a Bible, which also contained the ancient scriptures they knew very well. If it was an organized effort, as has been suggested, wouldn’t they have put all these writings together themselves at the time of writing?

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

 

[TriuneUnity]

If you are referring to 2 Peter many now believe that this is not authentically written by Peter. The writing styles are different and it refers to Jude if I remember correctly. Jude was writtten at a later date. The very fact that Peter is referring to Paul’s writing actually reinforces that it was not written by Peter.

Some have dated this writing at a much later date. Perhaps as late as when scripture was being defined by the Church. If true the author could have added this thought to 2 Peter.

Which incidentally is why 2 Peter was questioned for a very long time within the history of the Church and was accepted much later. We as Lutherans refer to this category of Scripture as antilogemena (books in dispute) and we do not draw doctrine directly from it but interpret its doctrine in light of clearer and more widely accepted texts (i.e., we don’t use Revelation to interpret Matthew, or James to interpret Romans ).

It is still Scripture, however, and I am merely posting it to show another poster that the New Testament refers to other New Testament writings as Scripture.

 

[TriuneUnity]

For the scripture says, “you shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out of the grain.” I believe they were referencing Old Testament scriptures.

Yes, Deuteronomy, I believe. Which is why I highlighted the secondary portion. The NT text is the second part.

There seems to be differences in the last part concerning the labourer, depending on which version of the Bible being used. The modern languages refer the same, but the Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and those translated from the Latin Vulgate state differences.

It isn’t the wording in English that is important. The Greek in that passage for “the laborer deserves his wages” occurs nowhere other than Luke 10:7. So if it is quoting Scripture, this is the only one it’s quoting. It doesn’t exist in the Septuagint.

St. Peter distinguishes between epistles and scriptures. The point he was making was the writings could be misinterpreted like the other scriptures.

It’s the word “other” that is important. If Peter had said “misinterprets like they do the scriptures” I could see your point. It’s the fact that he compares it with the other scriptures. “You can’t lift this weight, just like you can’t lift those other weights” makes sense. “You cant lift this weight, just like you cant lift those other elephants” doesn’t.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, Deuteronomy, I believe. Which is why I highlighted the secondary portion. The NT text is the second part.

It isn’t the wording in English that is important. The Greek in that passage for “the laborer deserves his wages” occurs nowhere other than Luke 10:7. So if it is quoting Scripture, this is the only one it’s quoting. It doesn’t exist in the Septuagint.

It’s the word “other” that is important. If Peter had said “misinterprets like they do the scriptures” I could see your point. It’s the fact that he compares it with the other scriptures. “You can’t lift this weight, just like you can’t lift those other weights” makes sense. “You cant lift this weight, just like you cant lift those other elephants” doesn’t.

As it was mentioned that some Apostles, scribes, etc. copied from other writings. It would have been possible that St. Paul or his scribes could have copied some of St. Luke’s writings. The other thing that I am trying to search through is the dual definition of scripture according to the Greek, but I don’t think there is a way to sort through it. Please don’t take this as an argument, but rather me thinking out loud for all to see, sort of thing. I just don’t find it enough to convince me at this time, especially since I provided the multiple other writings referring to their writings as epistles as opposed to scriptures.

I would very much appreciate other examples of New Testament scriptures referring to other New Testament scriptures.

I don’t see anything definite coming from the Peter example as I can see it your way and I can see it my way.

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

 

[PerryJ]

Which incidentally is why 2 Peter was questioned for a very long time within the history of the Church and was accepted much later. We as Lutherans refer to this category of Scripture as antilogemena (books in dispute) and we do not draw doctrine directly from it but interpret its doctrine in light of clearer and more widely accepted texts (i.e., we don’t use Revelation to interpret Matthew, or James to interpret Romans ).

It is still Scripture, however, and I am merely posting it to show another poster that the New Testament refers to other New Testament writings as Scripture.

Triune Unity

That is very interesting. What books are part of this?

Are they considered the inspired word of God? If not how do you define them. If they are the inspired word of God why do you not use them for direct interpretation? I am not quite understanding the concept of interpreting based upon other texts.

Concerning 2nd Peter there are many thoughts. The core doctrine could have been Peter’s it was just written at a later time. It is Peter’s writing and written during his lifetime; however, verses like the one you stated only discuss Paul’s writing that existed at the time of the writing. It is Peter’s writing and completed in his lifetime; however, some text were added later such as the one which you refer to concerning Paul’s writings. Does your Church pick between these theories?

With this thought how do you deal with additions to the Gospels that occurred at a later date? Did you remove them from your Bible or do similar actions with these verses? Or do you keep them as is. I can provide examples if you need them.

 

[Reformed]

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!

Do you want to understand the heart of Reformed Theology? What is man’s primary purpose in life? Or, please consider 1 Cor 10:31 to understand Refomed Theology. What is the central theme of Roman Catholicism?

 

[cath2lic4ever]

Do you want to understand the heart of Reformed Theology? What is man’s primary purpose in life? Or, please consider 1 Cor 10:31 to understand Refomed Theology. What is the central theme of Roman Catholicism?

all i can say is protestantism is wrong and there’s nothing much to say. so, please don’t waste my time. GOD bless & prayers to all!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Triune Unity

That is very interesting. What books are part of this?

2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

Are they considered the inspired word of God? If not how do you define them. If they are the inspired word of God why do you not use them for direct interpretation? I am not quite understanding the concept of interpreting based upon other texts.

They are the inspired Word of God. They are, however, books that were disputed for many years, even centuries, in the Church. Many great and scholarly church fathers did not consider them part of the canon. Since they qualified for the internal and external tests of the Church to be included in the canon, they were. However, the teaching in them is not as clear as the other 20 NT books. Let me give you an example of how interpreting the 20 NT books with these 7 can lead to error; dispensationalists look at the gospel of Matthew, specifically the passages where Jesus describes His second coming (ch. 25) and they use Revelation to interpret what Jesus is saying. This leads to the error of the rapture, 7 year tribulation, 1000 year earthly reign, etc. We should be using Matthew to interpret Revelation when Revelation speaks about specific end time events. The same goes with the other six books. Catholics, I believe, make this mistake with James and the book of Romans.

Concerning 2nd Peter there are many thoughts. The core doctrine could have been Peter’s it was just written at a later time. It is Peter’s writing and written during his lifetime; however, verses like the one you stated only discuss Paul’s writing that existed at the time of the writing. It is Peter’s writing and completed in his lifetime; however, some text were added later such as the one which you refer to concerning Paul’s writings. Does your Church pick between these theories?

Not that I know of vis a vie my Church, but I am sure they have addressed it somewhere. I just haven’t researched it.

With this thought how do you deal with additions to the Gospels that occurred at a later date? Did you remove them from your Bible or do similar actions with these verses? Or do you keep them as is. I can provide examples if you need them.

The overarching background to this kind of situation must always be the presupposition that the Scriptures were given to the church for her faith, life, and teaching and they were given directly by God. Any additions that may have crept in over time would be due to the providence and will of the Father. We can therefore assume the additions may have been necessary and correct. I am not well-versed enough on the topic to address specific addition issues.

 

[PerryJ]

2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

They are the inspired Word of God. They are, however, books that were disputed for many years, even centuries, in the Church. Many great and scholarly church fathers did not consider them part of the canon. Since they qualified for the internal and external tests of the Church to be included in the canon, they were. However, the teaching in them is not as clear as the other 20 NT books. Let me give you an example of how interpreting the 20 NT books with these 7 can lead to error; dispensationalists look at the gospel of Matthew, specifically the passages where Jesus describes His second coming (ch. 25) and they use Revelation to interpret what Jesus is saying. This leads to the error of the rapture, 7 year tribulation, 1000 year earthly reign, etc. We should be using Matthew to interpret Revelation when Revelation speaks about specific end time events. The same goes with the other six books. Catholics, I believe, make this mistake with James and the book of Romans.

Not that I know of vis a vie my Church, but I am sure they have addressed it somewhere. I just haven’t researched it.

The overarching background to this kind of situation must always be the presupposition that the Scriptures were given to the church for her faith, life, and teaching and they were given directly by God. Any additions that may have crept in over time would be due to the providence and will of the Father. We can therefore assume the additions may have been necessary and correct. I am not well-versed enough on the topic to address specific addition issues.

TriuneUnity

If the Bible is the word of God and God has one truth how do we have some books that are better than others? (I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I did not know how to phrase that last remark as I am not sure I understand the concept.) Does not the Protestant belief holds that the Holy Spirit guides one to understanding? How can one book of the Bible be less clear than another?

 

[TriuneUnity]

TriuneUnity

If the Bible is the word of God and God has one truth how do we have some books that are better than others? (I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I did not know how to phrase that last remark as I am not sure I understand the concept.) Does not the Protestant belief holds that the Holy Spirit guides one to understanding? How can one book of the Bible be less clear than another?

It’s not a question one book being better than another. Rather, it’s a question of what the use of the book is within the Church. We have to remember that while Scripture is divinely inspired it also has a human element and must be interpreted as a human as well as divine document. It should be apparent that outside of other books of Scripture being used to interpret the book of Revelation, if you only read through Revelation all sorts of mistaken conclusions can be drawn from it.

All of Scripture is not equally clear. The perspicuity of Scripture applies to salvation and the forgiveness of sins. That is the main point of the story that is detailed within. That doesn’t apply equally to every other doctrine that is taught within it.

 

[PerryJ]

It’s not a question one book being better than another. Rather, it’s a question of what the use of the book is within the Church. We have to remember that while Scripture is divinely inspired it also has a human element and must be interpreted as a human as well as divine document. It should be apparent that outside of other books of Scripture being used to interpret the book of Revelation, if you only read through Revelation all sorts of mistaken conclusions can be drawn from it.

All of Scripture is not equally clear. The perspicuity of Scripture applies to salvation and the forgiveness of sins. That is the main point of the story that is detailed within. That doesn’t apply equally to every other doctrine that is taught within it.

Okay, now I am lost. If all of scripture is not equally clear and their is a human element involved how do you know Luther’s interpretation is correct? Could not the human element be impacting his thoughts?

How was it chosen that scripture that has been added to the Gospel is inspired by God and the scripture of James is not as clear or not as inspired? (Again I am perhaps using the wrong terms here). James appears clear to me and the scripture applies to salvation and forgiveness of sins.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Okay, now I am lost. If all of scripture is not equally clear and their is a human element involved how do you know Luther’s interpretation is correct? Could not the human element be impacting his thoughts?

If we relied solely on Luther’s interpretation for how we view Scripture then there obviously would be a danger there. We do not, however. Scripture is to be interpreted according to the rule of faith as given in the ecumenical creeds and is to be interpreted in and by the Church.

A good example of this is the doctrine of the Real Presence.

How was it chosen that scripture that has been added to the Gospel is inspired by God and the scripture of James is not as clear or not as inspired?

It’s equally as inspired. If I were to refer someone to study the basics of the Gospel, it would not be James. Would you hand a new Christian the book of James in order to answer his or her questions about salvation? Or would you hand them the gospel of John, Romans, or 1 Corinthians?

(Again I am perhaps using the wrong terms here). James appears clear to me and the scripture applies to salvation and forgiveness of sins.

It’s primarily about right conduct and Christian sanctification. Hence, it is mainly a book that drives home the Law in the life of the believer. It is not primarily about the Gospel - which is the forgiveness of sins on account of the work of Christ.

 

[PerryJ]

If we relied solely on Luther’s interpretation for how we view Scripture then there obviously would be a danger there. We do not, however. Scripture is to be interpreted according to the rule of faith as given in the ecumenical creeds and is to be interpreted in and by the Church.

A good example of this is the doctrine of the Real Presence.

It’s equally as inspired. If I were to refer someone to study the basics of the Gospel, it would not be James. Would you hand a new Christian the book of James in order to answer his or her questions about salvation? Or would you hand them the gospel of John, Romans, or 1 Corinthians?

It’s primarily about right conduct and Christian sanctification. Hence, it is mainly a book that drives home the Law in the life of the believer. It is not primarily about the Gospel - which is the forgiveness of sins on account of the work of Christ.

If I am understanding correctly you have a Church that decides or interprets doctrine. How is this different then the Catholic faith?

To understand the faith I would hand them the enter Bible. We believe the Bible must be read in it’s entirety.

I agree with most of your statement concerning James; however, it has clear statements regarding faith and works; which, does impact salvation. (In Luthers own words that is why he does not like this book and wanted to throw it out. It did not agree with his theology.)

 

[TriuneUnity]

If I am understanding correctly you have a Church that decides or interprets doctrine. How is this different then the Catholic faith?

Namely that it is not infallible, nor does it claim to be on an equal level with Scripture as a source of divine revelation.

To understand the faith I would hand them the enter Bible. We believe the Bible must be read in it’s entirety.

That’s true. But what I meant was where to show them the Gospel clearly and succinctly stated. It would not be James (or Revelation, or 2 Peter).

I agree with most of your statement concerning James; however, it has clear statements regarding faith and works; which, does impact salvation. (In Luthers own words that is why he does not like this book and wanted to throw it out. It did not agree with his theology.)

Mainly works; and I agree, it impacts salvation because sanctification is a part of salvation. It is not, however, justification.

I agree with your comments about Luther. His greatest theological weakness was not being able to reconcile James with justification through faith alone. Fortunately, later Lutheran reformers did so quite nicely (as well as earlier church fathers, such as Augustine).

 

[PerryJ]

Triune Unity,

I will have to think about your responses.

How does your faith deal with Jerome’s arguments now being refuted by history? Now with scrolls showing that the DCs were printed in Hebrew prior to Greek. Jerome was using the best text he had available; however, this text now appears to have not been very reliable. Do you think your faith will ever review the DCs with this knew evidence?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Triune Unity,

I will have to think about your responses.

How does your faith deal with Jerome’s arguments now being refuted by history? Now with scrolls showing that the DCs were printed in Hebrew prior to Greek. Jerome was using the best text he had available; however, this text now appears to have not been very reliable. Do you think your faith will ever review the DCs with this knew evidence?

Do you have any information on this?

I, personally, love much of what the deuterocanonical books have to say and think they should be included with every Bible translation. Did you see the English Standard Version published by Oxford Press will have the DC included next year? I think outside of the KJV it will be the first English translation from non-Catholic sources to do so.

By the way… The Augsburg Confession of Faith, which is our main doctrinal statement refers to the DC as Scripture. I, personally, do not believe they should ever have been removed. The more I study them the greater I become convinced of this. However, I think there is much there that we can safely say is uninspired… such as portions that contradict the Hebrew books (I’ve only found one example of this, regarding who the ruler of Ninevah was).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you want to understand the heart of Reformed Theology? What is man’s primary purpose in life? Or, please consider 1 Cor 10:31 to understand Refomed Theology. What is the central theme of Roman Catholicism?

Reformed,

The central theme of Roman Catholicism is Christ, His Church and all it’s fullness, which includes all the “solas” and more.

When the reformation took place, the reformers took what they wanted from the Church and left what they didn’t understand or want. Those very teachings that they originally took had been taught through time until then.

Since that time some teachings have changed through individual interpretation, or so it seems. I say so it seems because when the heart of the matter is discussed, there is more in common than most will admit for various reasons. It’s bad explanations or misinterpretations of explanations that divide.

An example would be responding to questions with more questions. It would probably be more productive to give as precise an explanation of your belief with asking others to research what you believe.

A lot of misunderstanding seem to come from someone telling us what they think Catholics believe and denying explanations that are given or simply arguing what is really being agreed upon. This makes Catholics suspicious of your purpose for being here. If it’s not truly to understand our differences and our commonalities, what is your purpose of being here?

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1