Replies

have been shown much scripture to support these ideas [Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura]. There is just as much evidence of these ideas as there is of the idea of the Trinity

Blue Duncan's 5174 cited a verse cut from the next qualifying verse to support Sola Fide, while the qualifying verse, Eph. 2:10 turns the "plain meaning" into the Catholic doctrine of salvation through faith by grace sustained by charitable work. It also cited a verse whose plain meaning is that the clergy should augment their formation by reading the scripture, in support of Sola Scriptura. This kind of "plain reading" heavily colored by Protestant theological fantasies is rather typical. (See Joe's 5187 and my 5177 for details).

It is true that there is no plain scripture for the Holy Trinity either. The difference , of course, is that the Holy Trinity was taught by the Church as early as there was a Church. The Lutheran solas, on the other hand, were never taught by the Church. It is then incumbent on the Protestants to show why the Church was getting her soteriology and scripturology wrong for 2,000 years.

"Eph. 2:10 turns the "plain meaning" into the Catholic doctrine of salvation through faith by grace sustained by charitable work"

Nowhere does it say grace is sustained by charitable works.

Eph 2:8 For 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.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Verse 10 is a resulting clause. We do good works because we have been created in Christ by grace through faith. Grace and faith are gifts from God, not the result of good works, lest anyone should boast. You must be able to do better than that in arguing for a works based grace.

It is true that there is no plain scripture for the Holy Trinity either. The difference , of course, is that the Holy Trinity was taught by the Church as early as there was a Church.

I was trying to say that while the Trinity is not explicitly put forth in scripture, there is still scriptural support that it is true, independent of Tradition. For example, I think there is a reason we are not taught to Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and Paul. The truth of the Trinity is not dependent on Tradition, but on reasonable inference on what is in scripture.

The Lutheran solas, on the other hand, were never taught by the Church.

If they had been there never would have been a need for them. :) We disagree on whether the Church is the only source of truth.