Posted on 06/08/2018 8:54:57 AM PDT by Salvation
There are a lot of “solos” sung by our Protestant brethren: sola fide (saved by faith alone), sola Scriptura (Scripture alone is the rule of faith), and sola gratia (grace alone). Generally, one ought to be leery of claims that things work “alone.” Typically, many things work together in harmony; things are interrelated. Very seldom is anyone or anything really “alone.”
The problem with “solos” emerges (it seems to me) in our mind, where it is possible to separate things out; but just because we can separate something out in our mind does not mean that we can do so in reality.
Consider, for a moment, a candle’s flame. In my mind, I can separate the heat of the flame from its light, but I could never put a knife into the flame and put the heat of the flame on one side of it and the light on the other. In reality, the heat and light are inseparable—so together as to be one.
I would like to argue that it is the same with things like faith and works, grace and transformation, Scripture and the Church. We can separate all these things out in our mind, but in reality, they are one. Attempting to separate them from what they belong to leads to grave distortions and to the thing in question no longer being what it is claimed to be. Rather, it becomes an abstraction that exists only on a blackboard or in the mind of a theologian.
Let’s look at the three main “solos” of Protestant theology. I am aware that there are non-Catholic readers of this blog, so please understand that my objections are made with respect. I am also aware that in a short blog I may oversimplify, and thus I welcome additions, clarifications, etc. in the comments section.
Solo 1: Faith alone (sola fide) – For 400 years, Catholics and Protestants have debated the question of faith and works. In this matter, we must each avoid caricaturing the other’s position. Catholics do not and never have taught that we are saved by works. For Heaven’s sake, we baptize infants! We fought off the Pelagians. But neither do Protestants mean by “faith” a purely intellectual acceptance of the existence of God, as many Catholics think that they do.
What concerns us here is the detachment of faith from works that the phrase “faith alone” implies. Let me ask, what is faith without works? Can you point to it? Is it visible? Introduce me to someone who has real faith but no works. I don’t think one can be found. About the only example I can think of is a baptized infant, but that’s a Catholic thing! Most Baptists and Evangelicals who sing the solos reject infant baptism.
Hence it seems that faith alone is something of an abstraction. Faith is something that can only be separated from works in our minds. If faith is a transformative relationship with Jesus Christ, we cannot enter into that relationship while remaining unchanged. This change affects our behavior, our works. Even in the case of infants, it is possible to argue that they are changed and do have “works”; it’s just that they are not easily observed.
Scripture affirms that faith is never alone, that such a concept is an abstraction. Faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Faith without works is not faith at all because faith does not exist by itself; it is always present with and causes works through love. Galatians 5:6 says, For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love. Hence faith works not alone but through love. Further, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 13:2, if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
Hence faith alone is the null set. True faith is never alone; it bears the fruit of love and the works of holiness. Faith ignites love and works through it. Beware of the solo “faith alone” and ask where faith, all by itself, can be found.
Solo 2: Grace alone (sola gratia) – By its very nature grace changes us. Again, show me grace apart from works. Grace without works is an abstraction. It cannot be found apart from its effects. In our mind it may exist as an idea, but in reality, grace is never alone.
Grace builds on nature and transforms it. It engages the person who responds to its urges and gifts. If grace is real, it will have its effects and cannot be found alone or apart from works. It cannot be found apart from a real flesh-and-blood human who is manifesting its effects.
Solo 3: Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) – Beware those who say, “sola Scriptura!” This is the claim that Scripture alone is the measure of faith and the sole authority for the Christian, that there is no need for a Church and no authority in the Church, that there is only authority in the Scripture.
There are several problems with this.
First, Scripture as we know it (with the full New Testament) was not fully assembled and agreed upon until the 4th century.
It was Catholic bishops, in union with the Pope, who made the decision as to which books belonged in the Bible. The early Christians could not possibly have lived by sola scriptura because the Scriptures were not even fully written in the earliest years. And although collected and largely completed in written form by 100 AD, the set of books and letters that actually made up the New Testament was not agreed upon until the 4th century.
Second, until recently most people could not read.
Given this, it seems strange that God would make, as the sole rule of faith, a book that people had to read on their own. Even today, large numbers of people in the world cannot read well. Hence, Scripture was not necessarily a read text, but rather one that most people heard and experienced in and with the Church through her preaching, liturgy, art, architecture, stained glass, passion plays, and so forth.
Third, and most important, if all you have is a book, then that book needs to be interpreted accurately.
Without a valid and recognized interpreter, the book can serve to divide more than to unite. Is this not the experience of Protestantism, which now has tens of thousands of denominations all claiming to read the same Bible but interpreting it in rather different manners?
The problem is, if no one is Pope then everyone is Pope! Protestant “soloists” claim that anyone, alone with a Bible and the Holy Spirit, can authentically interpret Scripture. Well then, why does the Holy Spirit tell some people that baptism is necessary for salvation and others that it is not necessary? Why does the Holy Spirit tell some that the Eucharist really is Christ’s Body and Blood and others that it is only a symbol? Why does the Holy Spirit say to some Protestants, “Once saved, always saved” and to others, “No”?
So, it seems clear that Scripture is not meant to be alone. Scripture itself says this in 2 Peter 3:16: our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, Our Brother Paul speaking of these things [the Last things] as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Hence Scripture itself warns that it is quite possible to misinterpret Scripture.
Where is the truth to be found? The Scriptures once again answer this: you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).
Hence Scripture is not to be read alone. It is a document of the Lord through the Church and must be read in the context of the Church and with the Church’s authoritative interpretation and Tradition. As this passage from Timothy says, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible is a Church book and thus is not meant to be read apart from the Church that received the authority to publish it from God Himself. Scripture is the most authoritative and precious document of the Church, but it emanates from the Church’s Tradition and must be understood in the light of it.
Thus, the problems of “singing solo” seem to boil down to the fact that if we separate what God has joined we end up with an abstraction, something that exists only in the mind but in reality, cannot be found alone.
Here is a brief video in which Fr. Robert Barron ponders the Protestant point of view that every baptized Christian has the right to authoritatively interpret the Word of God.sss
Now, I don’t say this to be mean, but I do see, and I know that’s what Protestants object to, that in the Catholic belief on our salvation, some of that Satanic rebellion that caused both the fall of Satan and the fall of man is still present. Like, that God is mostly the origin of good, but somehow we are also little gods, and some tiny amount of goodness comes from us apart from Him. The whole claim about merit in our “cooperation” sounds like that, but I think what God has revealed to us in many ways thoroughly makes that impossible.
Again, we can’t equate our “currency” to pay our sin debt with Christ’s because His currency was His innocence. The whole reason why we need an innocent sacrifice on our behalf is because we can’t make one ourselves. So I believe it’s wrong to think we have any of that currency in and of ourselves.
And then recalling the parable that Jesus told about forgiveness concerning a master whose servant owed him a great amount, think of what we might owe God due to all of our sinfulness and our sins in thought, word and deed. I believe it’s like we owe an infinite debt, but let’s just say, to use actual numbers to make it easier to consider, that we owe God in the neighborhood of a trillion trillion dollars.
So let’s say that according to “faith and works,” we believe that Jesus’ work for us paid some of that trillion trillion, and we pay the rest, and we would also need to believe that our own works, done by our own resources apart from faith, can be a currency for paying on that debt. Assuming all that, and assuming that even when we’ve been born again in Christ, we still commit sins, just not in the same way, could we still ever get out of the red and into the black in our relatioship with God?
Still more could be said, but I have to believe that the idea of “merit” through our “cooperation” is a Satanic stronghold, a preserving of a little of that rebellion against God in claiming a small amount of independence from Him and independent good on our part is somehow there.
We may do what involves pain in this life for us in order to follow God’s will, but we do that with the knowledge that it’s best for us, in our self-interest, eternally. It doesn’t make sense to say that it’s selfless to avoid overeating, to abstain from taking drugs and getting drunk, or to abstain from robbing banks. It also doesn’t make sense, if someone’s drowning, to say that they were rescued by both their rescuer and themselves because they allowed themselves to be rescued. You can go on YouTube and see all sorts of videos of wild animals that ordinarily flee from humans allowing themselves to be rescued by humans when they’re in dire situations and know it. Their desperation drives them to take human help. We’re even in a more desperate situation since the wrath of God abides on us eternally without Christ.
You and I can agree to disagree on that.
Any answer to when Rome formalized the change of the first/chief importance of the gospel?
But if you start calling him "unchristian" or "heretic" you are no different from the most hidebound medieval Pope.
Well, the point of most of my comments are refuting the fact infant baptism takes away original sin based on Romans 5:12
I hope you don’t believe that absurdity...
Hmmm. I think there is more to it than you mentioned...
And if they could, some would bring that back today.
I have not researched that question regarding Roman Catholicism.
Romans 5:12 tells us that all have sinned; that includes even those yet to be born. Even babies need a Savior, because even babies have sin; Scripture teaches that and I have to believe it.
Let me quote something else from Scripture.
“18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”
Also: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
Also: “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”
Also: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”
Scripture says it. In the last quote; Jesus himself says it. And so I have to believe it. It would be a sad thing for me to condemn Rome for ignoring Scripture because it contradicts their theology, only to ignore Scripture that contradicts what I want to believe.
To answer your question, Rome goes too far in specifying only ‘original sin;’ baptism removes all sin because baptism is inexorably linked to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To be baptized is not ‘instead of’ believing in Jesus, or ‘in addition to’ believing in Jesus; the Lord gives baptism as a gift that makes salvation our own.
Rome, however goes too far in turning baptism into a work that we have to do in order to get saved. (Otherwise how would the thief on the cross next to Jesus be saved? And Paul simply preached in some places and allowed others to baptize.) But to ignore what Scripture says about baptism is a very, very dangerous thing to do, because it ignores the Word of God in favor of the word of me.
Both Martin Luther and Jorge Bergoglio have done that.
Which makes them more evil than their teachers because they are more subtil.
Scripture says it. In the last quote; Jesus himself says it. And so I have to believe it. It would be a sad thing for me to condemn Rome for ignoring Scripture because it contradicts their theology, only to ignore Scripture that contradicts what I want to believe.
I understand your dilemma over this issue.
However, note what Jesus does and does not say in the passage above.
He who believes and is baptized will be saved.
Then He says he who does not believe will be condemned....no mention of baptism.
Belief in Him is the key.
I do believe we come to Christ in faith/belief, then we follow that up with baptism. The faith is what saves us the baptism is the outward confirmation of the belief in Christ.
But if baptism is what saves us then the thief on the cross is out of luck as would be anyone who professes faith in Christ on their deathbed.
We have too many examples in the NT that shows we come to salvation through faith in Christ and then we are baptized.
Sola Scriptura sounds really funny when one considers that the first Bible printed by the Gutenberg Press was a CATHOLIC VULGATE BIBLE!
Then ignore the denominations and doctrinal stuff and focus just on Scripture.
Most of it is not very hard to understand. It pretty much says what it means and there’s enough of the stuff that one can understand that you don’t need to worry about the things you don’t.
Exactly.
Very good observation and very well put.
Not defending Rome in the least.
Exposing your error.
FWIW, you never answered the questions.
Evasion by attack duly noted.
What word definiton game?
The only word definiton problem comes from those who base doctrine on translations and suppositions, NOT the original Greek that the NT was written in.
So here’s a question for you and your fellow RC’s.
If Rome is indeed responsible for writing, copying, and preserving Scripture,then why did THEY make the choice of Greek words they did? Why did they use two different words that describe two different objects to identify Peter and the foundation on which the church is built?
I'm surprised that some seem to be oblivious to the fact that significant portions of the Protestant community, both currently and historically, practice infant baptism. The Reformers who gave rise to the Five Solas held to paedobaptism almost exclusively. The Protestants who practice paedobaptism do not hold to the RCC's position of baptismal regeneration.
That’s the basis for my seeking, of course, but I found that Scripture is itself denominationally dependent, with many versions of the Bible that, in my ever so humble opinion, do not read the same way to me.
So, as a seeker, I’m working on being a good (as unbiased as possible), observer/data taker and see what shakes out.
In the morning, I usually have the radio on in the background when I’m working and tune in the SDA am radio station for whatever happens to be on, and to the Bible Broadcasting Network on fm for several regularly scheduled programs: several Baptist preachers and to Alexander Scourby reading the Bible at 3 pm.
Just between those two denominations, the Baptists and the SDA, it’s fascinating how they all read from the same King James, yet have different interpretations, beliefs and practices regarding a lot of things, even about what day the Sabbath is.
So, while Scripture may not be hard to understand, we certainly do have many differing ways to understand the very same things.
Not only that, I’ve also observed how often we and me are utterly sure that our own interpretation is the correct one, and that it is given to us and our understanding is guided by His Holy Spirit.
If challenged, I’ve frequently observed how we all, me included, will soon act against each other in our own defense in ways that show little to no regard for Jesus or His Holy Spirit, but instead appear to come from something else altogether.
In fact, I find it scarily fascinating how humans are so easily possessed by otherly sorts of spirits and principalities, and how much I and others seem to enjoy getting caught and then caught up, possibly without our even knowing it.
Or worse, that we do, perhaps self-righteously, seek such possessions in order to “win” our battles with each other.
What I’ve observed is that we truly are puny little creatures, who are easily turned into the play toys of a radically powerful, fallen archangel, who has convinced far too many of us that he doesn’t even exist.
In observing my own reactions during these last few years, I think the trick seems to be first noticing how Satan pushes us and pulls our ego strings so that we dance with him to his music.
That’s how I’ve learned that I’m chock full of his malware and that, no matter how righteous I feel when I run with any it, it always goes bad, usually in a Proverbs 6:16 kinda way.
I addressed some of what you brought up in the post that you replied to, mostly in regards to the ‘requirement’ of baptism; I’ll get a little more into it below.
I think that half the issue with dealing with baptism and communion is that we really want it to be a pat, simple answer. Just a ‘tell me what I have to do’ kind of thing; at least that’s the attitude I had in my younger days. Scripture says that salvation is through faith; awesome! We have faith!
Scripture also says the baptism now saves us. But... how does that line up with salvation by faith? I can’t just ignore what doesn’t make sense to me or doesn’t match what I already believe; otherwise that makes me a massive hypocrite when I condemn Roman Catholics for the same thing.
In Lutheran theology (which I believe because, to me, that theology seems closest to what the Bible has to say), baptism is one of what is called the ‘means of grace’ (a concept that’s in the Bible even if the words themselves are not) which means that it’s one of the ways that God gives his grace to us; the others being hearing the Word (or the Gospel), and Holy Communion. Faith, IE, belief, is what makes that grace our own.
The tricky part is that while the Lord has given all three means of grace, it’s Jesus who saves. Our sin nature says, “Okay, what do we have to do to get salvation?” And Jesus says, “I’ve already done everything; this is my gift to you.” Catholic theology has turned the gifts of grace that the Lord has given us into works that we have to do, which is horrible. Unfortunately, there is a habit in Protestant theology to turn belief in Jesus into a work that we have to do as well.
So while baptism is not quote-unquote ‘required’ for salvation, there are still many promises related to being baptized in Scripture. Can Jesus save an unbaptized believer? Yes. But at the same time, why would we want to deny anyone the promises offered in Scripture, even infants?
I’m not entirely happy with that post, but I think it’s the best I can do right now.
Is true. I’m LC-MS and we practice infant baptism; I’ve performed a few myself. And there are reasons that we do.
The problem is that in so many places, the headbutting that goes on tends to push us into an either-or mindset
FWIW, the SDA are considered a cult as they make salvation based on observing the Sabbath on Saturday, the last day of the week, and that those who do not observe it that day will go to hell.
Now, I have heard they have backed off on that position some things.
But here is an interesting link to what they believe.
Seventh-day Adventism
https://carm.org/seventh-day-adventism
I have found that differences in interpretation come, not when someone reads Scripture and establishes doctrine based on it, but rather when someone establishes doctrine and then tries to use Scripture to support it.
I do note in the above link, that SDA’s believe that Jesus is Michael the archangel, which is what the JW’s also believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.