5 questions and the 5 solas

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

Why bother? It’s the Protestant along with the Muslim-in-chief who sit on their high horses condemning the Catholic Church for so called atrocities that have been committed against the poor Muslims in the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.
“I will not serve! Came out of the depravity of Luther. He could have been a great Saint in reforming the Catholic Church as did St. Francis of Assisi, But no, he rebelled and said “I will not serve and changed Bible verses to justify and serve his own purposes. (Judas).
Henry the VIII, I will not serve! Which introduced divorce and later Birth Control.
So tell me, who destroyed the FAMILY?
“I will not serve!”
It’s the Catholic who will have to explain to their fallen away brothers that there will be no Rapture. It will be the Catholic who will have to explain to their fallen away brothers that it’s not the end of the world.
It will be in Humility and Love that the Catholic will embrace with Love and Mercy their lost brothers and sisters who were deceived by the Ant-Christ because of their disobedience. “I Will Not Serve.”

St. Michael, “Who Is Like Unto God?”

I’m sorry, but you justify unto hate. For you are the rebellions ones.

You prefer not to look back to the Fathers of the Church but prefer the easy way out which is wide and met with no resistance.
I pity you.

Read all of Romans instead of proof-texting and you will discover that the "works of the law" that Paul is discussing are those of the law of Moses.

I am very familiar with Romans. ALL of it.

*Proof texting*???

Now THAT'S funny coming from a Catholic. If you object to proof texting, then there's a whole bunch of random Scripture verses that Catholicism that it hangs its hat on that I'd like to discuss.

The whole purpose of Romans was to contradict the idea that Christians were still bound to the Mosaic law.

Yes.

To try to apply what he is saying to a discussion of the relationship between faith and obedience to the moral law is to take Paul completely out of context.

And you know that how? Is that your interpretation of the passage?

For even in Romans Paul states that his mission is to bring about the obedience of faith (Romans 1:5).

OK.

Salvation is more than just an intellectual assent to the saving work of Jesus Christ.

True, but it happens before works. One is saved first, then produces the works to demonstrate it.

But the righteousness we have is the righteousness of Christ that has been credited to our account by faith in Him.

Rnmom states it very well here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3254531/posts?page=336#336

"I can say with confidence I am saved now ... I am working out that salvation as God wills.. and on the day of my death I will stand Before Christ clothed in His righteousness .. not my own ... "

and here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3254976/posts?page=15#15

" But I know with certainty that as I breath my last breath I will be in His presence wearing His robe of righteousness.. "

We enter heaven clothed in HIS righteousness, not our own. Our righteous deeds, done as the out flowing of our faith are for the praise and glory of God and we will be rewarded for faithful obedience but they do NOT contribute to our salvation because OUR righteous deeds are as filthy rags in God's sight.

Your rant makes little sense but as to some of it......

It’s the Protestant along with the Muslim-in-chief who sit on their high horses condemning the Catholic Church for so called atrocities that have been committed against the poor Muslims in the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

What prots have ever condemned the Catholic church for so-called atrocities against the muslims?

And as far as calling them *so-called* atrocities, do you not consider burning someone at the stake with pages from the Bible as fuel an atrocity?

Do Catholics not think that that would qualify?

“I will not serve! Came out of the depravity of Luther. He could have been a great Saint in reforming the Catholic Church as did St. Francis of Assisi, But no, he rebelled and said “I will not serve and changed Bible verses to justify and serve his own purposes. (Judas).

The Catholic church ex-communicated him.

And did he ever say *I will not serve*? Can you point to the quote?

TIME-OUT! All of those links are to Roman Catholic sites. Not one it to Beggers All.

But I will provide the link: Luther Added The Word "Alone" to Romans 3:28?

What out FRoman Catholic FRiend Salvation didn't provide, for whatever reason is the rest of the article, which actually refutes the above FRoman Catholic Polemic. Here is what you will find regarding Luther and adding the word "alone:" The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone:”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).
John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).
Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).
Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).
To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).
See further:
Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.
Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).
Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

What? All of those early "Catholics" held to faith alone?!?

Out of curiosity Salvation, why did you not post the entity of this article, but just the part about where the author is laying out the Catholic Polemic and not the response?

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.