The Reformation and the various “solas” derived from it was a struggle for simplification of faith with regard to Christ. Jesus was the example who broke through the complications of the Pharisaical religious and moral systems and restored the light of the simple gospel. Jesus’ contemporaries considered this simplification as an assault on the mystery of the legalistic relation between God and man, and on the Tora. They considered the plucking ears of corn and the cure of a patient on the Sabbath to be a threat to the gift of the Father. They saw their whole man-made tradition system imperiled, and criticized Jesus’ doctrine and practice as an imperfect radical alteration of their religion. Rarely has the immense risk inherent in the handling of the scheme of simplification been made more manifest in history than in the struggle of Israel’s leaders against the Lord, for in this case, the simplification, was the renewal of the possibility of the gospel of God’s grace to be heard. In the complexity of the many commandments and ordinances, Christ called men to come to him: “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
The sola Scriptura principle follows this radical simplification. This simplification is not achieved by simply cutting out certain essential elements from the gospel, but by starting from a central religious conception of the entire gospel. It was not a question of misinterpreting the way of revelation but it was the rejection of all that had assumed authority in the church by means of an unbridled tradition, which was contradictory to the gospel. The simplification brought about by the Reformation included the rejection of the mystic elements, the devotion to Mary, and the exaltation of offices, as a direct consequence of the unique and all-important position assigned to Christ and his work. The significance of Jesus’ sufferings and death on earth was valued so highly that every element of reduplication or repetition in later history was absolutely excluded. On account of this conception the Reformation opposed with all its religious fervor the (bloodless) “repetition of Christ’s self-sacrifice on Calvary’s cross.”
The Reformed confession of the absolute grace of God was not an attack on God’s immanence or on the presence and indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the church. Nor was it a question of overestimating God’s transcendence and undervaluing his immanence. But it was a confession whose radical character was decisive in opposition to the meritoriousness of good works. The Reformation did not want to cut out elements from the gospel but to maintain the full gospel of grace. To formulate the difference sharply: the confession of God’s grace was not meant to fix the mind on some partial aspect of truth. The Reformation did not want to eliminate man, faith, sanctification and good works. But the Reformation opposed the view that “eternal bliss truly and certainly depends on ourselves.”
The listening to the Word, as the sword of the Holy Spirit did not mean any limitation of God’s freedom; Quite the opposite. The Reformation really called back to the simplicity of the gospel: from Mary to Christ; from the many intercessors, to the sole advocate; from the mass, to the immeasurable value of Christ’s earthly self- sacrifice; from the meritoriousness of good works, to the justification of the ungodly. In this call the simplicity of the gospel was promulgated again, and the complexity of the medieval system of penitence was broken through. This was an entirely different approach to the gospel as a whole, revealing the power of the Word, freed from its obstacles. The sola fide, sola Scriptura, solus Christus were not the result of confused thinking, but the rediscovery of the simple faith that conquers the world as against the Roman complication of the gospel. In the Reformation, the issue was not concerned with the contrast between an isolated truth and the mystery of the whole truth, but with the preaching of the whole Christ.
Hard to believe that assertion.
Plenty of abundant Biblical proof has been repeatedly posted.
And denied.
Well said. It’s really not that difficult to discern and Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees should be the bright light that illuminates the crux of the issue. But our Romanist FRiends can’t get seem to understand the difference between “sola” and “solo”.
That I understand. Still, it is a legitimate question that I pose: if the demand to explain the priesthood from scripture is made, then surely the similar demand to explain the two erroneous Solas can be made.
If, on the other hand, the two distinctly Protestant Solas (we are fine with Sola Gratia"), Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are shorthand for "Faith is really important" and "Scripture is really important", then of course these are nice sentiments, but then your objections to priesthood and the veneration of saints and Mary cannot stand either.