Why We Need the 'Solas'

Martin Luther is not merely a key figure in the unfolding of events in the Protestant Reformation; he also played a major role in moulding its ideas. 'Perhaps more than any other person, Luther shaped the presuppositions that define Protestantism.' (Stephen J. Nichols) These presuppositions are known to scholars in their Latin form as the five Reformation 'solas': 'sola Scriptura' = 'Scripture alone'; 'sola fide' = 'faith alone'; 'sola gratia' = 'grace alone'; 'solus Christus' = 'Christ alone'; and 'soli Deo gloria' = 'to the glory of God alone.' That they each find their place at the root of Luther's thinking is sufficient testimony to the seminal role he played in their fuller development by later Protestant theologians. In this short study we will consider why Luther thought we need these 'solas.'

Scripture Alone

We begin where Luther begins, with 'sola Scriptura,' the formal principle of all Reformed teaching. We need 'sola Scriptura' because in this dark world of spiritual blindness, 'the only reason we can see at all is that the light of God's Word shines brightly (2 Pet. 1.19).' Without that light 'we would not know or understand anything.' (Works, 6.148) Luther hammered this truth as firmly into his hearers' minds as he hammered the Ninety-five Theses onto Wittenberg Castle Church door. At every opportunity, he calls us away from the spurious claims of Rome, reason, mysticism and the sects, back to the written Word of God. 'We must learn to depend on the visible Word of our invisible and incredible God' (5.183), for 'faith . . . does not judge . . . by what it sees or feels but by what it hears. It depends on the Word alone.' (Sermons, 1905.1.23)

Indeed, the only reason we know that God is present with us is 'through his Word.' To trust in it is to trust in him. So, he resolves: 'God's Word alone will be my rod and staff.' (12.169) 'I will live by what it says.' (22.6)

Luther's heroic stand at Worms can be explained in no other way. In danger of his life from the Roman Catholic emperor Charles V as he recalled John Hus at the Council of Constance; opposed by the papal nuncio Aleander, ready to thunder Rome's anathemas against him; barely supported by Germany's petty princes, hesitant and uncertain of the outcome; Luther refused to be intimidated. When called on to recant, even when no heresy had been proved against him, he replied: 'I am bound to the Scriptures . . . my conscience is captive to the Word of God.' The Bible alone was his sheet anchor during this Satanic storm, as it was throughout his entire life. Thus Luther teaches us that we need the Bible alone because all other testimony is liable to err, and it alone is inerrant.

Faith Alone

Luther hammers home our absolute need of faith as vigorously as he does our total dependence on Scripture. Let us not imagine, however, that with him 'sola fide' was nothing more than belief in God and assent to the articles of the Christian creed. No, it is especially the personal appropriation of Christ and God's gracious promises in him, as given to us in Scripture.

Forceful convictions mingle with child-like tenderness in Luther's teaching on appropriating Christ. 'Of what benefit would it be to me,' he cries, 'if Christ had been born a thousand times . . . if I were never to hear that he was born for me?' (Sermons, 1905. I. 149) By contrast he gently affirms: 'My sweet Redeemer is sufficient for me. I shall praise him all my life.' (Letters, 1908. XXIV)

But whether forceful or gentle, Luther is always pointing us - both preachers and hearers - to Christ alone. In preaching, 'Christ should be placed directly before our eyes so that we see and hear nothing apart from him.' In hearing, 'faith is an unswerving gaze that looks on Christ alone.' (26.356)

What could the snake-bitten Jews do to heal themselves? he asks vehemently. Nothing! Moses commanded them to look at 'the bronze snake, which points to Christ (John 3.14) . . . with an unswerving gaze. Those who did so were healed.' Those who did not, but 'looked at their wounds instead . . . died.' So too, we must not pore over our own sins, but 'do nothing but look to him.' In him we see our sins dealt with by his death, and our victory over sin, death and the devil secured by his resurrection. 'This is true faith in Christ and the right way to believe.' (26.356)

Since 'all God's promises are based on Christ,' to appropriate them is to appropriate him. There is no basic difference between Abraham's faith and ours. The only difference is that 'Abraham believed in the promised Christ who was still to come. We believe in the Christ who has already come. We are all saved' through 'this same faith.' (3.26)

'The Holy Spirit' holds God's promises 'before us so that' we 'may find refuge and comfort' in them when we sense God's anger against us, or when we are assailed by 'serious doubts . . . such as: "What if God does not want me to be saved?" . . . When our consciences are troubled in this way we must continue to believe the promise of salvation - a promise we can trust in and depend on ... We must hang onto God's promise, because if Satan can prevent us believing it, then we have nowhere else to turn. We must hold tightly to the promise and be ready for the times when God will test us.' (4.93) From Joel 2.15, he adds: 'It is wonderful to see the way the Holy Spirit works. He highlights the threat in order to show us the goodness and mercy of God.'

When God-fearing people hear the Word, they apply these promises to themselves in the right way. 'Disheartened and crushed by God's anger and threat of punishment,' knowing 'they deserve divine judgment,' and recognizing 'the seriousness of sin and its condemnation . . . when they hear these promises they turn to God's mercy,' and he calms their consciences. This is the way God works in his people. After terrifying them 'with threats, he comforts them with his promises.' (18.97) And it is the faith he has given them that appropriates these promises for their deliverance.

This kind of faith, and no other, Luther claims, is sufficient for our salvation. Therefore 'we should conclude with Paul [in Galatians 2.16] that we are justified by faith alone . . . faith that takes hold of Christ the Saviour and keeps him in our hearts.' (26.136)

As if to strike one last hammer blow on behalf of faith alone, Luther concludes that without it we cannot understand the Lord's dealings with us at all. But faith 'will comfort me' even 'when I leave this earth . . . My body will be buried in the ground and eaten by worms . .. When I look at death I do not see God's plan for me. Yet God has promised that I will come back to life. Christ said: "Because I live, you will live also" (John 14.19). But how will I live? I will live in eternal life, in a body that is brighter and more beautiful than the sun. I cannot see or feel any of this yet. But I believe it, and I can tolerate the short delay.' (6.401)

We need 'sola fide,' then, because faith is the only thing that lays hold of Christ in the promises of the Word for our salvation.

Grace Alone

Luther has as much to say in defence of 'grace alone' as he has about 'faith alone.' Indeed, he sees it operating in every part of the believer's life. As with other 16th century Reformers, he divides scriptural teaching on it into two parts. The first is God's objective grace, or free, unmerited mercy towards us. The second is his subjective grace infused and working in us.

Objective grace opens the door to our justification. 'People are not justified and do not receive life and salvation because of anything they have done. Rather . . . because of God's grace through Christ. There is no other way.' Those who are tired of hearing this great truth because they learned it when young barely understand how important it is. 'If it continues to be taught as truth, the Christian church will remain united and pure,' for it 'alone makes and sustains Christianity.' It is so essential that 'we will always remain its students, and it will always be our teacher.' Those who really understand it 'hunger and thirst for it. They yearn for it more and more. They never get tired of hearing about it.' (14.36)

Grace is so necessary to our justification that 'wanting to be justified by our own works through the Law is ... throwing away God's grace . . . This is a serious error.' From Galatians 2.21, he infers that to reject salvation by grace alone also makes 'Christ's death . . . pointless, which is the highest blasphemy against God.' (27.240) It is only 'because of God's mercy and grace' that sinners are accepted by him and receive from him a righteousness not their own. (12.328)

This constitutes the glory of the gospel. 'It does not tell us to do good works to become virtuous, but announces God's grace to us, freely given and without our merit.' (30.3)

Grace becomes subjective when it is infused into sinners' hearts by God's Holy Spirit in their new birth. This is the grace that actually unites them to Christ and makes them new creatures. 'We cannot feel the new birth . . . we cannot see it . . . we cannot . . . understand it.' Yet it is real, and 'we must . . . believe it. What is born of the Spirit is spiritual.' Because it is so, its primary benefit is eternal life. (22.290) Just as after Adam sinned he could do nothing to restore to himself the life he had forfeited, so we too can do nothing towards our restoration to God. (30.263) God himself must restore us. This makes subjective grace absolutely necessary.

Once God's grace has been infused into us, Luther continues, it does marvellous things. For a start, it enables us progressively to keep God's Law, which we could never do before. He who 'brought God's grace and truth' to us (John 1.17) really enables us to keep the commandments. Being 'enlightened by the Holy Spirit, renewed by the Word of God, and having faith in Christ,' we who believe now have 'a new spirit that makes God's Word and God's laws a pleasure to obey.' Moreover, as we proceed through life, it is the same grace that enables us to 'find joy in trusting God above everything else.' (22.143)

It is grace alone too that deals with the darker side of the believer's life. When cast down by sin, fear and doubt, he finds grace at hand to uplift him. Even when, like the psalmist in Psalm 42, 'you see only the Law, sin, terror, sadness, despair, death, hell and the devil . . . grace is present when your heart is restored by the promise of God's free mercy . . . Are not grace, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, comfort, joy, peace, life, heaven, Christ and God also present?' Therefore, say to yourself: 'stop being troubled, my soul . . . Trust God.' 'Whoever truly understands this [i.e. by experience] can be called a theologian.' Grace is thus so necessary that we must be 'diligent students' in its school 'as long as we remain in these sinful bodies.' (26.341)

Finally, when this sin-troubled life is over, it is grace alone that gives believers the victory over death. We do not win it. Rather, it is given us 'out of God's grace.' Christ secured it for us, and we share in his victory over it. (28.212)

From foundation stone to topmost stone, then, the house of salvation is built entirely of grace. Luther states why we need both grace and faith in one sentence: 'If grace or faith is not preached, then no one will be saved, for faith alone justifies and saves.' (27.48)

Christ Alone

'Christ alone' is the next 'sola' that Luther dings into our dull ears. How greatly we need it is evident from the knowledge God gives us of our legalistic, self-righteous hearts. From a wealth of available sources, we select a small sample to illustrate his firm conviction of its necessity.

In a letter defending his attack on papal indulgences, he writes: 'I teach that man must trust solely in Christ Jesus.' (Letters, 1908, London. XXI)

While expounding John 3.16, he says: 'God gave his Son to the lost so that they might be saved. Then what should you do? Nothing! Don't go on pilgrimages. Don't do this or that good work. Instead, simply believe in Christ alone.' (22.374)

A leading aspect of the Holy Spirit's testimony within the believer is that'Christians can depend on nothing except Christ, their Lord and God.' (24.119)

From the expression: 'of his fullness have all we received' (Col. 2.10) Luther deduces that we need no-one else but Christ. Whether our faith is strong or weak, we 'have the same Christ' and 'are all made perfect through faith in him . . . Whoever accepts him has everything.' (23.28)

In such varied ways as these, Luther proclaims a thousand times the sole saving efficacy of Christ. Having done on our behalf all that God requires, he alone can be our Saviour. 'There is no other . . . but Christ alone' (24.48) This is reason enough to hold onto the principle of 'solus Christus.'

The Glory of God Alone

By his constant insistence on believing, it may be suspected that Luther places man's salvation above God's glory. But it is not so. Luther teaches that God is glorified more in man's salvation than in his damnation. This is why God himself - by his prophets, his Son and his apostles - repeatedly beseeches them to come to him.

So, concludes Luther: 'Glory belongs to no-one but God alone.' (Sermons, 1905. I.156)

Chief among Luther's thoughts on how to honour God is that we should hold his Name or character in the greatest reverence. When his Name is 'holy in us . . . God becomes everything, and we become nothing.' (42.27) Everything that threatens to usurp this unique honour is anathema to him.

Inevitably, Luther ascribes equal glory to each Person of the Godhead. All the Father's glory belongs to the Son, who is 'one God together with the Father. Likewise the Holy Spirit has the same divine nature and majesty.' (22.6) When by grace we give God his due, we glorify all three Persons of the Godhead.

The same honour must be given to all God's attributes or perfections. Singling out his goodness and mercy for special treatment, Luther is most practical in showing us how to honour God because of them. When, for example, we read that the Lord is good (Psa. 118.1) we should not 'skim over' this truth 'quickly or irreverently,' but should 'remember that these are vibrant, relevant and meaningful words that emphasize the goodness of God.' Pausing to ponder them should lead us to realize his inclination to do us good 'from the bottom of his heart.' He punishes people only because of their 'wickedness and stubborn refusal to change.' His 'daily and continual goodness' should draw from our grateful hearts the praise and thanks he deserves. (14.47)

Luther makes a special point of encouraging us to 'reflect back on the years of our lives.' Even when we are bewildered by what has happened to us, we should be able to see 'God's wonderful power, wisdom and goodness' guiding us. 'Only when we look back do we fully realize how often God was with us when we neither saw his hand nor felt his presence.' But as Peter says: 'He cares for you.' (1 Pet. 5.7) Luther is so insistent on this practice that he says: 'Even were there no books or sermons to tell us about God, simply looking back on our own lives would prove that he tenderly carries us in his arms. When we look back on how God has led and brought us through so much evil, adversity and danger, we can clearly see the ever-present goodness of God.' (42.130)

As for his mercy, it is the balm of every sin-burdened and guilt-ridden heart. When we by faith hide beneath his mercy seat, we find ourselves 'covered with a vaulted ceiling called mercy.' So, resolves Luther, setting us an example: 'My heart and conscience will crawl under it and be safe.' (51.278)

True to character, Luther extracts from the angels' song at the birth of Christ (Luke 2.13-14) two delightful lessons for us. 'First of all, by joyfully singing about the honour of God, they show how full of light and fire they are.' Furthermore, 'they don't take credit for anything. They enthusiastically give glory to God, the One to whom it belongs. If you wonder what a humble, pure, obedient and happy heart in God is like, then think of the angels praising God. This is their priority as they live in God's presence.' Secondly, they show us how much they love us, because 'they celebrate our salvation as if it were their own.' So we should 'regard them as highly as we would our best friends.' 'We might not know what they are made of,' he concludes with childlike simplicity, 'but we know what their highest desire is.' So we should imitate them in praising and honouring him. (52.29)

Conclusion

Even from the few select references we have offered, it may be clearly seen that the five Reformation Solas' - Scripture, faith, grace, Christ and God's glory - are internally united and therefore inseparable. This is because the mind of God as revealed in Scripture is one. When the Holy Spirit combines them in our experience, we too cannot think of one without referring to the rest. This is the aim of all true theology - to think God's thoughts after him, and so be conformed to his mind. May he accomplish this in us, that we might live by them, and be able to teach others also.

>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm<

St. Augustine employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his “De Doctrinâ Christianâ” he enumerates the components of the complete Old Testament. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leadingspirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded.

No where is that canon give to Rome to play with .... Trent had no right to change the Covenant God made with the Jews for its own purposes..

Trent was long after an official council determined the INSPIRED canon to the Jews..

Show me in scripture where God moved the authority of the jews over the OT to the Christian church .

Are you aware that up until Trent, Rome had no official canon? Different provinces used different canons in the early church. At that time Rome officially added to the OT canon of the Jews

Even some Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation made the distinction between the Apocrypha and the canon (Cardinal Ximenes in Complutensian Polyglot, 1514; Cardinal Cajetan, 1532,

The Apocrypha itself never claims to be the Word of God. What right does Rome have to declare it?

The early church showed no unanimous support for these works, Some used it and some did not.. These works were opposed by
Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and Jerome ...Fathers catholics are quick to quote as if they were infallible.. I guess they were only infallible when they agree with them

Augustine agreed with Jerome that they were suitable for spiritual reading but not inspired.

You still haven't provided a quote from Augustine saying that they are not inspired. He said no such thing. You aren't making things up about the Church, are you?

Also, the councils of Carthage say no such thing. They do name specifically those scriptures in the canon, and it includes those under discussion.

Have you ever REALLY read them ?

Of course. I'm Catholic.

Have you noticed the inconsistencies and errors??

There are doubters who make the same claims about the scriptures held canonical by the Protestants. It's not a very persuasive one.

“The Apocrypha itself never claims to be the Word of God.”

What a ridiculous criteria!

How many books of the Bible would be excluded if THAT were the standard?

And what of the fraudulent N.T. editing by Luther?
Protestants certainly have no “unanimous support” for much, considering the 13,000 denominations. Private, yet, conflicting revelation is NOT very convincing.

“The early church showed no unanimous support...”
“Unanimous support” is NOT the criteria!
The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), are quite sufficient!

"Trent was long after an official council determined the INSPIRED canon to the Jews..

And what council would that have been and was it universally accepted by all that you call Jews?

It appears that YOPIS includes the power to establish canon for yourself. If nothing else it refutes your denial of free will.

Of course. I'm Catholic.

Well then with discernment you should see the mistakes and inconsistency in them

There are doubters who make the same claims about the scriptures held canonical by the Protestants. It's not a very persuasive one.

Do you know who is credited with the authorship of Maccabees? Do you know when it was penned?

Did Gregory THE GREAT accept them 600 years after Christ ?

Please pick up your bible ..go to Maccabees I 8:16 Look to read the account of Antiochus

Now go to Maccabees 2 1 :16 and read the account of Antiochus there and then go to Maccabees 2 :10 and read the account of the account of Antiochus there

Which is the Holy Spirit inspired account??

In Maccabees 1 9:3 read the account of the death of Judas..

Now read Maccabees 2 1:10 where he writes a letter 33 years after his death
In Macc1 4:36 it says Judas judas purified the temple before the death of Antiochus
Yet in Mac 2;10 it says this purification it says this happened AFTER the death of Antiochus
So which was it??

Perhaps the most telling is that at the end of the book the author begs the forgiveness of the readers which places this in the human history end of the library because the holy Spirit only writes the truth and never needs to apologize for His work.

Perhaps that is why the author tells us there were no prophets in the land.. because Inspired scripture is written by prophets..

The Apocrypha itself never claims to be the Word of God.

It would be interesting to see you put that test to each of the books in the Protestant canon.

These works were opposed by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and Jerome

That is not true. For example, see these quotes from Athanasius, Cyril and Origen. Jerome did have some problem with them, but then submitted to Church teaching.

Fathers catholics are quick to quote as if they were infallible.. I guess they were only infallible when they agree with them

The Church does not teach that they are infallible. Don't try to pass it off as Church teaching because it is not true and it does not bolster your case.

What these Protestants do not grasp is that the Church is the context of the Bible whereas the Bible is the context of the Protestant churches because the Church gave us the bible. Without the authority of the Church and it's canon the Bible in an errant collection of inerrant works.

No the scriptures were recognized long before Rome ... If in fact Rome had given us the "bible" it is interesting that there is no mention of a pope, priests, mass, praying to saints vestments,etc..?

It was almost 400 years after Christ that the church sought to develop some kind unity in the canon by drawing together the various texts that were being used in the churches . The church in 400 was very different than Rome today ..there were no crucifies and no such thing as prayer to Saints

Even then the early councils were not ecumenical they were local

As early as 200 there was a collection of scriptures that men used . Origen, born at names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.

It might make Rome "feel good" to claim authority of the scriptures that they now disregard in their teachings.. but the Author and keeper of the scriptures is the Holy Spirit of God..

Well then with discernment you should see the mistakes and inconsistency in them

That's the same argument made by atheists against the Bible.

Do you know who is credited with the authorship of Maccabees? Do you know when it was penned?

Let's see you answer that for each book in your Bible. Try, and you'll see what a ridiculous accusation you are making.

It looks like you are scrambling to make any argument you can against them. Atheist go to great extremes to point out inconsitencies in the Bible making the same arguments you are presenting, but about the Protestant canon.

It would be interesting to see you put that test to each of the books in the Protestant canon.

They do all "test" ..all of them are Christocentric..not so for the pretenders

That is not true. For example, see these quotes from Athanasius, Cyril and Origen. Jerome did have some problem with them, but then submitted to Church teaching.

LOL so that makes them true? Mormons submit to the book of Mormon does that make it true ? Muslims submit to the koran ..does that make it true?

hey listen friend most of the arguments I read hear from Catholics are from the church fathers .. they sure act like they are infallible

They do all "test" ..all of them are Christocentric..not so for the pretenders

That isn't the test you proposed. You claimed "The Apocrypha itself never claims to be the Word of God." I asked that you demonstrate the same for each book in your canon. You haven't, and it is noted that you now do a switch and bait. Less than clever, but C+ in effort.

LOL so that makes them true?

No, it just proves your claims wrong about Athanasius, Cyril and Origen. But I can understand why you would want to divert to something else.

hey listen friend most of the arguments I read hear from Catholics are from the church fathers .. they sure act like they are infallible

I don't care about your opinion. Just do not try to pass it off as Church teaching. Also, just so you're clear, I'm not your friend. I don't know you any better than any of the anonymous, bitter, Calvinist deceivers who post here.

These are huge errors ..not errors in copy ...

These are same claims of atheists. They do not impress.

These are the works of men.. not God

Your opinions mean nothing to the Church.

but that fits well with Rome ....it is all about the works of men

Resorting to attacks demostrates you've run out of reasoned arguments.

The Jewish canon of the OT says Just says the Lord in 420 passages

Just show me Christ in ANY of the apocrypha... where it contends it is the inspired word of God ..where is the “thus says the Lord” in them? Where do they tell you this is the word of the Lord.. being Catholic I am sure you know this right?

It is interesting that the book of 2 Maccabees, tells of Nehemiah “founded a library and collected books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings” (2:13–15).

One of those Books Deuteronomy warns the reader about adding to these books..

The Jewish canon of the OT says Just says the Lord in 420 passages

That's great. I've not heard of this test being required to demonstrate canonicity. Show me where it says this in every "book" of your OT canon and every book of your NT canon.

Just show me Christ in ANY of the apocrypha... where it contends it is the inspired word of God ..where is the “thus says the Lord” in them?

First, prove that this is a criteria required for determining what belongs in the canon. Then demonstrate that every book in your Bible qualifies using this criterion. Once you demonstrate both of these, then you may have a case.

Did you have a point?

One of those Books Deuteronomy warns the reader about adding to these books..

Does your Bible have no books after Deuteronomy? Does this warning apply to Luther for adding the word "alone"?

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.