5 questions and the 5 solas

The Cripplegate ^ | July 2, 2014 | Jesse Johnson

[RnMomof7]

The Protestant Reformation threw the Christian world into chaos. At the beginning of the 1400’s the Pope’s authority was absolute and the only means of salvation were the sacraments given under his auspices. There was a secular/sacred distinction that was ironclad, meaning that the priests and laity lived in practically two separate worlds. There was no concept of church membership, corporate worship, preaching, or Bible reading in the churches. And as far as doctrine was concerned, there was no debate—the creeds and declarations from Rome (and soon to be Avignon) were the law.

Things had been this way for six hundred years. In a world where life expectancy was in the 30’s, that is essentially the same as saying that the church had been in the dark forever.

But if you fast-forward to the end of the 1500’s, all of that had been turned on its head. The absolute nature of the Pope’s rule and vanished—in large part owing to the Babylonian Captivity of the church (the 40 year period were two rival popes both ruled, and both excommunicated each other—finally to both be deposed by a church council). Church councils themselves had contradicted themselves so many times that their own authority was openly ridiculed. The Holy Roman Empire was no longer relevant, and the political world had simply passed the Pope by. 

Protestants found themselves in the wake of this upheaval, and there was one major question to be answered: what, exactly, was this new kind of Christian? What did a Protestant believe? The reformation had followed similar and simultaneous tracks in multiple countries, yet at the end of it all the content of Protestantism was pretty much the same. On the essentials, German, English, Swiss, and Dutch Protestants all stood for the same theology. But what was it?

It was easy to understand the beliefs of Catholicism—all one had to do was look at their creeds and the declarations from their councils. But Protestants were so named precisely because they were opposed to all that. So what council would give them their beliefs then?

This is where the five solas came from. These were five statements about the content of the Protestant gospel, and by the end of the 1500’s, these were the terms which identified Protestantism. These five phrases are not an extensive statement on theology, but instead served simply as a way to explain what the content of the gospel was to which Protestants held.

Sola Fide—Faith alone

Solus Christus—Christ alone

Sola Scriptura—Scripture alone

Sola Gratia—Grace alone

Soli Deo Gloria—God’s glory alone

These five solas still live on to this very day. They define what the gospel is for evangelicals worldwide, and also provide a helpful summary—a cheat sheet even—of what marks the true gospel from a religion of works. But historically, these five solas make the most sense when viewed from the perspective of answering the question: what do Protestants believe? In fact, each one of these five is an answer to a particular question:

What must I do to be saved? Sola Fide

The gospel is not a religion of works, but a religions of faith. You can’t do anything to be saved—rather, God saves you on the basis of your faith, which is itself on the basis of the work of Christ on your behalf. Protestants believe that you don’t work for your salvation, and that nobody is good enough to deserve salvation. But thankfully salvation does not come on the basis of works but instead on the basis of faith.

Sola fide declares that In addition to faith, you can do absolutely nothing in order to be saved.

What must I trust? Solus Christus

In a world with deposed Popes in the unemployment line, this question has profound importance. Keep in mind that for six hundred years, nearly every European would have answered that question by pointing at the sacraments. You trust them for your salvation. Perhaps some would point you to the church, the priest, of even to Jesus himself. But only a Protestant would say “trust Jesus alone.”

Solus Christus is a simple declaration that salvation is not dispensed through Rome, priests, or sacraments. There is no sense in putting hope in extreme unction, purgatory, or an indulgence. Instead it comes through Jesus alone.

What must I obey? Sola Scriptura

When the Council of Constance deposed both Popes, this question took on a sense of urgency. If a council is greater than a Pope, then does one have to obey the Pope at all, or is it better to simply submit yourself to the church as a whole? Are believers compelled to obey priests in matters of faith?

Sola Scriptura says “no.” In matters of faith, believers are compelled by no other authority than that of Scripture. There is no room for a mixture of history and tradition—those cannot restrain the flesh and they cannot bind the conscience. Instead, believers’ only ultimate authority is the Bible.

What must I earn? Sola Gratia

Is there any sense in which a person must earn salvation? For the Protestant, the answer is obvious: NO! Salvation is of grace…ALONE. It is not by work or merit. God didn’t look down the tunnel of time and see how you were going to responded to the gospel, then rewind the tape and choose you. He does not save you in light of what you did, are doing, or will do in the future. Instead, his salvation is based entirely upon his grace.

What is the point? Soli Deo Gloria

What is the point of the Reformation? Why are these doctrinal differences worth dividing over? Because people were made for one reason, and one reason alone: to glorify God. God is glorified in his creation, in his children, in the gospel, and most particularly in his son. The highest calling on a persons’ life (indeed, the only real calling in a person’s life) is that he would glorify God in all he does. Nevertheless, we always fail to do that. Yet God saves us anyway through the gospel.

Soli Deo Gloria is a reminder that by twisting the gospel or by adding works to the gospel, a person is actually missing the glory that comes through a gospel of grace and faith, through Jesus, and described by Scripture. The first four questions really function like tributaries, and they all flow to this body—God’s glory.

Do you think these five solas retain their importance today, five hundred years later? Are they still adequate for describing the gospel of Grace?

[CynicalBear]

You could have just said you can’t answer the questions and that you put your full faith and trust in some stranger.

[metmom]

Argue all you like. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church will Triumph.

Well, it sure isn't going to be the Roman Catholic one that schmoozes up with islam.

[CynicalBear]

No, you didn’t answer my questions with anything to show you answers valid.

[xone]

no redemption in the suffering of a person

Believer, unbeliever or doesn't it matter? What exactly is redeemed during suffering?

[CynicalBear]

>>That would be so very true of catholicsm....redefine words until they fit the needed meaning!<<

And redefine the same word differently in different places without justification.

[CynicalBear]

>>You wouldn’t except the TRUTH even if it was obvious and visible and set before your face.<<<

It's obvious metmom already recognized and accepted the truth and walked away from the Catholic Church just as God said His people should.

Revelation 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "'Come out of her, my people,' so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;

[metmom]

Unbelievable! Do you honestly believe that there is no redemption in the suffering of a person who may be experiencing the agony of cancer? How SAD!

What's really sad is that Catholicism teaches redemption by suffering when the Bible (Which by the way, Catholics tell us the Catholic church wrote) says this.

Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Suffering does not redeem because it is the wrong mechanism for redemption. The wages of sin is DEATH. Suffering is part of life but does not redeem in the least. Anyone who is trusting their suffering to save them is in for a big surprise and anyone who tells you that suffering is redemptive is lying.

[Steelfish]

Good grief! Bible Christians wallow in the shallow-end of the theological pool and expect others to play their game. No deal.

Go read the works of those, especially eminent Protestant scholars who have seriously studied this material- not just your quotes- as part of a university curriculum, and then converted to Catholicism. Your theory basically is that each person gets to crack open the Bible and provide us their “own” authoritative interpretation, and apparently this is not placing “full faith and trust in some stranger.” As before, the arguments advanced by Bible Christians self-destruct.

[CynicalBear]

>>Do you honestly believe that there is no redemption in the suffering of a person who may be experiencing the agony of cancer?<<

How about polio? Any redemption there in your fantasy?

[billys kid]

What you believe sounds wonderful.
However, the Catholic is very aware of the sins they may have committed within a week. Did I look upon a woman with lust? Did I envy the man who has a wife who loves and supports him?
Do I envy those who have more than I do?
Am I ungrateful for what the Lord has allowed to disrupt confuse and cause disruption in my life?
Do I honestly believe?
The Lord is my shepherd, there is nothing I will fear....

[metmom]

Do you honestly believe that there is no redemption in the suffering of a person who may be experiencing the agony of cancer?

No. Not redemption for salvation and I don't see anything else mentioned in Scripture that needs to be redeemed or can be by suffering.

People suffer.

Sometimes life just doesn't go the way you want.

[LearsFool]

This part is confused:

You can’t do anything to be saved—rather, God saves you on the basis of your faith

So you have to have faith to be saved, do you? That's doing something, isn't it?

Protestants believe that you don’t work for your salvation, and that nobody is good enough to deserve salvation. But thankfully salvation does not come on the basis of works

The author has two different kinds of works there. The explanation he seeks is right in front of him. He's nearly there, but can't see it. Paul's contrast between faith and works in Romans is a contrast between faith and those works that would make one good enough to deserve a "not guilty" verdict.

[CynicalBear]

>>Go read the works of those, especially eminent Protestant scholars who have seriously studied this material- not just your quotes- as part of a university curriculum, and then converted to Catholicism.<<

Yeah, them Universities are full of wise men who teach......wait........what? You kiddin me? You impressed with Obama too? He's been educated in those universities you know. And Benny Hinn got himself one of them diplomas too. I hear pope Francis has some higher education too!!!

[metmom]

However, the Catholic is very aware of the sins they may have committed within a week.

Oh really?

I've heard plenty of Catholics talk about not sinning as if they can actually accomplish that.

So is ANYONE ever really aware of all the sins they have committed in a week?

I highly doubt it. Anyone who can count up every sin he's done is not being very discerning about the sin in their lives.

That comes from having a laundry list and checking off boxes. It leaves you thinking that you can actually go without sinning because it's not on the *don't* list.

[Mark17]

You can break free of those chains. A lot of us Freepers have.

Affirmative OY. I am glad to have found a reason to leave the RCC. 😇 It was the most beautiful thing to ever happen in my life. Free from the bondage of Rome and it's dead works, I am free to live for Jesus, and I ain't swimming the Tiber, at least till 897 trillion eons pass. Do you think it should be longer?😄 Some may not like that. Such is life. 🆒

[daniel1212]

Isn’t it wonderful that all can use and abuse the actual teachings of the Church Doctors and Fathers?

So you think RC invocations of “unanimous consent” of the fathers?, is valid? Since RCs are not to objectively examine in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, and for a RC they can only mean what Rome says they do, then your allegation of abuse is in-credible.

Let me know you finally come up with an actual argument.

[billys kid]

Unbelievable! Let me take your heart of stone and turn it into “My Heart”, “A heart of Flesh.”

[billys kid]

Again,that’s your loss!

[Steelfish]

Instead we must be “impressed” by “your” interpretation and those “stranger” sources you have relied on?

[metmom]

Unbelievable! Let me take your heart of stone and turn it into “My Heart”, “A heart of Flesh.”

FOTFLOL!!!!!!!!!

Back to the subject, I didn't think you could provide any links to what you claimed.