Beware the “Soloists” – A Concern for the “Solos”: Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia

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.

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.

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.

Let's look at what the Early Church believed

1. The Early Church Had a Mass
The primitive liturgy was no casual Bible study but a structured Eucharistic celebration akin to the Catholic Mass. The Didache (c. 70-100 AD), one of the oldest Christian documents outside the New Testament, outlines prayers over bread and wine, thanksgiving, and communal assembly—echoing the Mass's structure.¹ St. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology (c. 155 AD), describes Sunday gatherings with readings from Apostles and Prophets, a homily, prayers, and the Eucharist—precisely the Ordinary of the Mass.² No Protestant "praise service" here; this was sacrificial worship, handed down from the Apostles. Pity that your tradition discards this for innovations unknown to the early Church—how "biblical" of you.

2. Belief in the Eucharist
The early Christians professed the Real Presence, not your symbolic "remembrance." St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD), a disciple of St. John, warns against Docetists who "abstain from the Eucharist... because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ."³ Justin Martyr affirms: "We do not consume the Eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food... for we have been taught that these are truly the body and blood of Christ."⁴ This transubstantiation-like doctrine predates any Protestant denial by over a millennium. How amusing that you reject what the Apostles' successors taught, opting instead for Zwingli's 16th-century reinterpretation—truly, a "reformation" of convenience.

3. Rejection of Sola Scriptura
The early Church never held Scripture as the sole rule of faith; that novelty is Luther's gift to the world. St. Paul himself urges holding to traditions "whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess 2:15). The Church Fathers emphasized apostolic oral tradition and ecclesiastical authority. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD) appeals to unwritten traditions from the Apostles.⁵ Ignatius stresses bishops as guardians of doctrine, not individual Bible interpretation.⁶ The canon of Scripture? Decided by Catholic councils at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD)—without a Magisterium, you'd have no Bible to "sola" with. Your doctrine self-destructs under scrutiny; it's as if the Church waited 1,500 years for Luther to "discover" what the Apostles somehow forgot.

4. Rejection of Sola Fide
Faith alone? The early Church demanded faith and works, as Scripture attests: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). Clement of Rome writes that we are "justified not by ourselves... but by the operation of God," yet stresses "good works" as essential.⁷ The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 150 AD), widely read in early churches, teaches repentance and works for salvation.⁸ Even Augustine, whom Protestants claim, affirmed: "Without love, faith can indeed exist, but avails nothing."⁹ Your sola fide ignores this synergy, reducing salvation to a mental assent—how reductionist, and how alien to the Apostolic witness.

5. Rejection of Once Saved Always Saved
Perseverance isn't guaranteed; the early Church warned of apostasy. Hebrews 6:4-6 speaks of those "enlightened" who "fall away" and cannot be renewed. St. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) notes that salvation requires enduring to the end, with the possibility of loss through sin.¹⁰ Tertullian and Cyprian discuss excommunication and penance for post-baptismal sins.¹¹ Augustine battled Pelagians but upheld free will's role in perseverance, rejecting eternal security as presumption.¹² Your OSAS doctrine fosters complacency, unknown to the Fathers—who knew better than to promise what Scripture doesn't.

In sum, the "complete Christian teaching" is Roman Catholicism, preserved through apostolic succession. Your protest is but a echo of historical amnesia. Perhaps revisit the sources before another rude dismissal—lest you find yourself outside the very Church Christ built on Peter (Matt 16:18).

And if we want to look at what scripture itself says (ok, ok, I know that veers into sola scriptura, but for the sake of clarity, let's look at what scripture says about this):

1. The Early Church Had a Mass
The New Testament depicts structured liturgical worship centered on the Eucharist, mirroring the Catholic Mass—not your informal gatherings. In Acts 2:42, believers "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers"—a clear outline of readings, community, Eucharist, and prayer. Luke 24:30-35 shows Jesus in the Emmaus road encounter: He explains Scriptures, then breaks bread, revealing Himself—precisely the Liturgy of the Word and Eucharist. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 records Paul handing down the Eucharistic rite from the Lord: "Do this in remembrance of me," implying a repeatable, sacrificial liturgy. No "service" innovation here; this is the Mass in embryonic form. Pity any modern beliefs that ignore these teachings for feel-good alternatives.

2. Belief in the Eucharist
Scripture affirms the Real Presence, not mere symbolism. John 6:51-58 is explicit: Jesus declares, "I am the living bread... the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh," and "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." When disciples balk and leave (v. 66), He doesn't clarify it as metaphor—He doubles down. In Matthew 26:26-28 (parallels in Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20), at the Last Supper, Jesus says, "This is my body... this is my blood," transforming bread and wine. 1 Corinthians 10:16 asks, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" And 1 Corinthians 11:27 warns of profaning the body and blood, guilty of sacrilege if unworthy.

The symbolic view? A later dilution, unsupported by these texts.

3. Rejection of Sola Scriptura
The Bible itself rejects "Scripture alone" as the sole rule, emphasizing oral tradition and Church authority. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 commands: "Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Not just written—oral too. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says Scripture is "profitable" for teaching, but not exclusive; it assumes prior oral teaching (v. 14: "continue in what you have learned"). In Matthew 18:17-18, Jesus establishes Church authority: "If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector"—binding decisions, not individual interpretation. Acts 15's Council of Jerusalem resolves doctrine via apostles and elders, not Scripture alone (they cite it but decide authoritatively). As to sola scriptura? A self-refuting loop, since the Bible doesn't list its own canon—requiring extra-biblical tradition.

4. Rejection of Sola Fide
Faith alone? Scripture demands faith working through love and deeds. James 2:14-26 is blunt: "What does it profit... if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?... Faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead... You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." Abraham's faith was "completed by works" (v. 22). Galatians 5:6 states: "The only thing that counts is faith working through love." Matthew 25:31-46's judgment sheep/goats hinges on works: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked—or eternal fire. Romans 2:6-8: God "will render to every man according to his works." Even Paul, in Philippians 2:12, urges "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." sola fide cherry-picks, ignoring these—reducing salvation to a ticket punch, alien to Biblical wholeness.

5. Rejection of Once Saved Always Saved
Perseverance isn't assured; Scripture warns of falling away. Hebrews 6:4-6 describes those "once enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift... if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt," impossible to restore. Hebrews 10:26-27: "If we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment." Matthew 24:13: "He who endures to the end will be saved"—implying not all do. 2 Peter 2:20-22: Those escaping worldly pollution through Christ, if entangled again, "the last state has become worse for them than the first." Romans 11:22: "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." OSAS? Presumptuous comfort, contradicted by these sobering texts—encouraging vigilance, not complacency.

There you have it—purely Biblical if one wishes

the Bible aligns with Catholic doctrine as it:

1. Rejects Sola Scriptura by upholding oral tradition and Church authority as the pillar of truth (2 Thess 2:15; 1 Tim 3:15; Mt 18:17).

2. Rejects Sola Fide by declaring justification involves works, not faith alone (James 2:24; Mt 25:31-46; Gal 5:6).

3. Rejects Once-Saved-Always-Saved by warning of the need to endure and the risk of falling away (Mt 24:13; Heb 10:26-27; 2 Pet 2:20-22; 1 Cor 9:27).

4. Affirms the True Presence in the Eucharist as Christ’s literal body and blood (Jn 6:51-58; 1 Cor 11:23-29; Lk 22:19-20).

Catholics affirm salvation is wholly by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9 KJV: “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast”). “Faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6 KJV) and “cooperating with grace” (Philippians 2:12–13 KJV: “Work out your own salvation... for it is God which worketh in you”) mean responding to God’s free gift, not adding to Christ’s cross (Galatians 6:14 KJV: “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ”).

We don’t “earn” salvation—Christ’s merit alone saves (Romans 5:19 KJV: “By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous”)—but living faith produces works as fruit (Ephesians 2:10 KJV: “Created in Christ Jesus unto good works”).

I would also note to pre-empt the "Bereans" argument:

The Bereans were not Christians initially; they were synagogue-attending Hellenistic Jews familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures (primarily the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, often via the Greek Septuagint translation). Paul preached to them about Jesus as the Messiah fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, including his death and resurrection—ideas not explicitly detailed in their Scriptures at that point, as the New Testament writings were still in formation and not yet canonized. Many Bereans believed after verifying Paul's claims, but some did not, leading to Paul's departure amid opposition (Acts 17:10–15). Their "examination" involved cross-referencing Paul's oral teachings with messianic prophecies (e.g., Isaiah 53, Psalm 22) to confirm alignment, not a wholesale rejection of new revelation

The Bereans only had the Old Testament (no New Testament canon yet), and even Jewish scriptural boundaries were debated in the 1st century (e.g., the Septuagint included books like Tobit that Protestants later rejected). If sola scriptura held, they might have dismissed Paul's novel claims about Jesus's resurrection as "extra-biblical."

The Bereans accepted oral tradition and apostolic authority: Paul's message was new oral revelation (paradosis, or "tradition" in Greek), not derived solely from Scripture. They verified it didn't contradict the Old Testament but embraced it as authoritative teaching, aligning more with a "scripture plus tradition" model than "scripture alone."

Judaism at the time included oral traditions (e.g., the Mishnah's precursors), and the Bereans didn't operate in a vacuum of "private interpretation." They were in a synagogue community, and their acceptance of Paul shows deference to living, inspired teaching. Critics note that if they were truly sola scriptura, they might have reacted like the Thessalonians who rejected Paul outright.

The early church relied on apostolic oral tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15) before the New Testament was written and canonized (a process involving church councils in the 4th century). The Bereans' praise was for their openness and diligence, not for inventing a doctrine absent from the text.

In fact the Bereans are counter-sola-scriptura

Far from proving "Scripture alone," Acts 17:11 illustrates the Catholic paradigm of Scripture harmonized with apostolic tradition and authority:

Openness to Oral Tradition: The Bereans (Hellenistic Jews) were commended for their "nobility" primarily because they "received the word with all eagerness"—Paul's new oral preaching about Jesus's death and resurrection, which wasn't explicitly in their Scriptures (the Old Testament). They verified it didn't contradict the Old Testament (e.g., messianic prophecies in Isaiah 53) but accepted it as binding revelation, showing deference to apostolic authority rather than rejecting extra-biblical teaching.
Contrast with Thessalonians Ironically, the Thessalonians (who rejected Paul after he reasoned from Scripture) more closely resemble sola scriptura adherents, dismissing new oral tradition as unscriptural out of skepticism or jealousy. Catholics quip that rigid "Bible-alone" groups should name themselves after the Thessalonians, not the Bereans
No Complete Canon or Private Interpretation: The Bereans lacked a New Testament (which the Church later canonized) and operated in a Jewish context that included oral traditions (e.g., the "seat of Moses" in Matthew 23:2). Their communal synagogue study wasn't individualistic, and Scripture requires authoritative interpretation (e.g., Philip explaining to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30–31; warnings against twisting Scriptures in 2 Peter 3:16)
Alignment with Catholic Teaching: This episode supports the "both/and" Catholic model: Scripture is inspired and essential but inseparable from Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (e.g., the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, where the Church infallibly decided doctrine). Protestants' use of the Bereans is seen as proof-texting that ignores context and projects a later doctrine onto the text.

And regarding 2 Timothy 3:16—it’s a beautiful verse that highlights the divine inspiration and usefulness of Scripture, which Catholics wholeheartedly affirm.

2 Timothy 3:16 doesn’t claim Scripture is sufficient on its own, or the only rule of faith. The word “profitable” (Greek: ophelimos) means “useful” or “beneficial,” not “exclusive” or “all you need.”

In context, Paul is writing to Timothy around AD 65–67, urging him to persevere amid false teachers (2 Timothy 3:1–9). Verses 14–15 remind Timothy to “continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it” (referring to oral teaching from Paul and his family) and how “from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings” (the Old Testament, since the New Testament canon wasn’t yet finalized). So, 2 Timothy 3:16 praises the OT’s role in leading to salvation through faith in Christ (v. 15), but Paul assumes Tradition’s necessity—after all, how did Timothy know which writings were sacred? The Bible doesn’t list its own table of contents; that came through Church councils like Rome (AD 382) and Hippo (AD 393), guided by the Holy Spirit through Apostolic interpretation (aka apostolic tradition)

“Should you make use of the Bible alone as the source and norm of your Faith, then you must also be certain that the Bible that you have is the genuine Bible. Who vouches for that?”

The question perfectly targets the absurdity of excluding the sacred Christian Tradition. For you cannot decide entirely on your own which is the true Bible – without an entire context. It is exactly the same as with family tradition: none of us can know our parents without accepting a context from which we learn who they are – the context we call “family.” Otherwise, no one could find out on his own, without any external help, who his father or mother is.

The fact that a person could claim that he can embrace the faith exclusively through the Bible, excluding Tradition, is simply absurd. For someone has handed him an edition of a Bible which he trusts a priori to be the correct, genuine version. So he has placed trust in a person and a context that supported his conviction that he holds a good version of the Bible in his hands. This is a form – however vague – of Tradition which shows that it is not actually possible to judge based on the Bible without having external support.

For a Catholic, this support is represented by the Church itself

Obviously, the main problem for the reformers was and is the “crisis of trust” in the authority of the Catholic Church.

An unleashed subjectivism, in which everyone is the center of his own religious universe, deciding for himself what is good and what is bad, what is true and what is false. From this have resulted the continuous splits among the various factions. We see with our own eyes in the consequences of these splits:

Scripture repeatedly teaches that salvation, while secure in God's hands for the faithful, can be forfeited through grave sin or unbelief. Consider these passages:

Hebrews 6:4–6: "For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance." This describes genuine believers ("enlightened," i.e., baptized; sharing in the Spirit) who can apostatize, making renewal difficult (though not impossible with repentance).
Hebrews 10:26–29: "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment... How much worse punishment... will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God." Aimed at Christians who've received Christ's sacrifice, it warns of losing its benefits through willful sin.
2 Peter 2:20–22: "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first." Peter describes saved people ("escaped through knowledge of Christ") who return to sin, ending worse off (cf. the prodigal son's potential permanent loss if unrepentant, Luke 15:11–32).
1 Corinthians 9:27: Paul himself says, "I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." If OSAS were true, Paul wouldn't fear disqualification from the prize (salvation; Philippians 3:12–14).
Ezekiel 18:24 (OT foreshadowing): "But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice... none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered... he shall die." Jesus echoes this in parables like the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23–35), whose debt forgiveness is revoked due to unmerciful actions.
Revelation 3:5: Christ promises to the faithful, "I will never blot his name out of the book of life"—implying names can be blotted out for the unfaithful (cf. Exodus 32:32–33; Psalm 69:28).

These aren't about "losing" salvation accidentally but forfeiting it through deliberate rejection of grace (mortal sin: grave matter, full knowledge, deliberate consent; 1 John 5:16–17). God doesn't "snatch" us away—He respects our freedom (Sirach 15:14–17). Yet, hope abounds: Repentance restores us (Luke 15:7; 1 John 1:9; James 5:19–20), as in the sacraments of reconciliation.

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.