Posted on 06/08/2018 8:54:57 AM PDT by Salvation
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.
There are several problems with this.
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.
Second, until recently most people could not read.
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.
Here is a brief video in which Fr. Robert Barron ponders the Protestant point of view that every baptized Christian has the right to authoritatively interpret the Word of God.sss
But mostly because, throughout the centuries until now, other people have an understanding of, and even a relationship with, Mother Mary, whereas I have had none at all.
So, while I am not “following Mary”, I do want to be friends with Her, too, along with the fruit of her womb, Jesus.
And, I do ask Her to pray for us sinners, now and in the moment of our deaths.
Seem like good ideas to me.
Another theory I have is that the Protestant’s understanding of, and somewhat hostile relationship with, Mother Mary has something to do with why the Protestants now come in so many different flavors.
Satan is the master home wrecker and, rumor has it, he hates Mother Mary.
Curious how Mary, Mother of God, is not really a part of the “Protesters” beliefs, and how they have broken their piece of His Church into splinters compared to the Orthodox and Catholics, who by understanding and teaching venerate Mary.
Just a curious observation...
+1
We are not called ever into a *relationship* with Mary.
Is a relationship with Jesus not enough?
Is a relationship with Jesus not enough?
Satan is the master home wrecker and, rumor has it, he hates Mother Mary.
Satan hates EVERYONE.
Mary bore Christ. She is certainly part of Christian beliefs.
God says she is highly favored among women - not above - because she was chosen to bear Messiah.
We give her the honor God gave her and and no more.
We do not...
Give her titles God never gave her
Pray to anyone but God
Pretend she has powers
Pretend she can here prayers
Make her into a demigoddess Idolize her
Pretend she is our mother
how they have broken their piece of His Church into splinters compared to the Orthodox and Catholics
Christians (those who have entrusted themselves to Him alone for salvation - apart from their own works and false merit through sacraments) are not splintered. They are the Body of Christ.
They know better than to idolize any departed Christian, including Mary.
That is humorous, while as regards the mode, even though in the recent past I was under the impression (based upon my RC youth) that sprinkling is the norm, but that no longer is the case.
What method(s) of baptism does the Catholic Church use? Canon 854 has the answer: baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring, in accordance with the provisions of the Bishops’ Conference..Superficially, that would appear to suggest that baptism by sprinkling isn’t valid.
But not so fast. Note that the wording of canon 854 of the current (1983) Code of Canon Law is markedly different from the corresponding canon of the previous (1917) code. Canon 758 of the old Code of Canon Law—which is no longer in force—said that baptism is validly conferred by all three of the methods listed above. Translating the Latin wording of this old canon into English is a bit tricky, because it indicates that these three methods were not only valid, they were licit as well...
the Catholic liturgical books today say that you shouldn’t baptize by sprinkling. They don’t say you mustn’t baptize that way. That’s why canonists logically conclude that baptism by sprinkling is illicit [legal]…but valid. - http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/02/09/why-is-this-method-of-baptizing-illicit/
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), in his Summa Theologiae stated that "baptism may be given not only by immersion, but also by affusion of water, or sprinkling with it. But it is the safer way to baptize by immersion, because that is the most common custom" (III. 66.7).
Baptism by sprinkling or pouring came to be known as "clinical baptism," because it was first primarily used for those who were sick. No doubt because of bodily weakness the practice was used also on infants. However, sprinkling can also be traced to pagan rites. When the water of baptism became charged with a mysterious virtue, which gave it a quasi-spiritual efficacy operating more or less mechanically, the realistic symbolism of baptism by immersion was lost.
Yet the apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Romans points out that the rite of baptism by immersion ex presses symbolically our personal faith in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection in our behalf. The essence of baptism on the human side, wrought by the Holy Spirit, is a renunciation of self or a burial of the "old man" and a resurrection to a new life in which the power of the resurrected Lord is at work. Only believers' baptism by immersion can realistically symbolize the theological essence of the Biblical doctrine of baptism. - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1978/07/how-the-doctrine-of-baptism-changed
The early practice of baptism. We can be fairly sure that early baptism was not normally by sprinkling. Other possible alternatives were pouring (affusion) and immersion. Probably immersion was the norm. A number of factors point in this direction. First the wider usage of the word baptizO generally has the sense of dip-ping or immersing, for example, the dyeing of cloth. Second, John's location at Salim, because "there was much water there," suggests a practice that used a lot of water On 3:23). Third, immersion better expresses the radical notion of rebirth, of dying and rising again, that is central to baptismal theology On 3:3-6; Rom 6:1-11; Tit 3:5). Fourth, the continuing practice of the Orthodox Church is to immerse (babies). One can imagine a shift in practice toward sprinkling in the West after infant baptism became the norm. It is difficult to imagine a shift in the East toward immersion after infant baptism became the norm. Finally, the concession of the Di-dache in allowing pouring where factors made the normal mode of baptism prob-lematic also points toward baptism by immersion (Did. 7.3). The church took the mode of baptism seriously, with immersion a normal requirement, though not an absolute one. - Introducing Early Uhristianity A lop cal Survey of Its Lite. By Laurie Guy
However, while Catholicism places great weight upon paedobaptism, yet once again there is not one description of this in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, and it is contrary to its meaning and the predominate denotation of "baptismo," and the stated requirement for baptism, leaving Catholics to extrapolate it out of brief mentions of whole household baptisms. and make it into a magical act.
But the manifest reality is that it just leaves them wet.
It is RC scholarship that reduces such to being fables , not fundamental; evangelical scholarship.
If Scripture commanded the baptism of infants, and actually recorded such, then surmising what happens thereby would be allowed, but instead resorting to appeal of mysticism when faced what Scripture says and does not say in refutation of you is simply spurious.
Anywho, thanks to the First Parents, we all are natural born sinners: born in a sinful world to sinner parents.
And are not guilty of one sin that would damn us.
I also believe that we are born knowing God, with full memory of our first sight being the Eyes of the One who formed us, but that we “forget” soon after birth.
Which is simply a more extreme example of recourse to unproven mysticism which is untenable as a argument.
We are to believe like children. How am I doing so far?
In fantasizing you are doing quite well, but believing like children refers to believing the word of God, not fantasy.
“Falling from Grace” is indeed a scary concept that I take for granted as being true.
It fits with the worldly, merit-based, conditional love of the Father whose Cup is close to overflowing with Justified Anger at us.
See, I sorta got booted out of the family (And don’t come back!) when I was a kid, so falling from grace makes sense, based upon my own limited experience with fathers.
I admit that I see God, the Father, as very scary in an OT kinda way.
And, for some reason(s), I think of His, the Father’s, love for us as being conditional, whereas Jesus, the Son’s love for us, to me, is unconditional.
Huh...thanks. You’ve given me something to think about.
I’ll consider what you have written and add what’s new to what I’ve found so far.
Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between mysticism and the supernatural acts of the Bible, if I’m using the words correctly?
Does God still do supernatural acts any more post-Bible? If not, why not?
If so, then how do you know if they are supernatural acts of God or acts of mysticism?
Thanks!
Lots of things are like that these days. Beliefs that we humans are causing Global Warming or that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant are accepted without question.
But Bible stories? Not so much...probably because you can’t prove them to the skeptical’s five senses and rational mind.
Who are they to believe? You and your Bible and its stories about a guy who wants us to drink his blood?
Or their five senses and rational mind that see how the only thing “you believers” do is fight with each other about how everyone else has it wrong but you.
Honestly, in these times, we’re a scattered bunch of lambs and sheep, dangerously so. Can this be fixed or is it too late?
If you want to hear something “crazy”, at Garabandal, Mother Mary spoke of a coming correction Her Son, Jesus, has for us.
Not sure what to make of that, either, but I’m hopeful.
You have NO Gospel citations of Christ instructing his disciples to “write” ANYTHING!
Then he(?) is qualified to be pope.
YES.
Not cherry picked or interpreted as you do.
Interesting belief.
Can you explain WHY?
Since the book Rome assembled so long ago does NOT say anything of the sort.
In fact; if your 'belief' were true; then HOW do Catholics account for the FALSE teachings found so soon: the ones in the seven churches in Asia?
I'll be awaiting an answer.
No, you have NEVER shown a Gospel quote of Christ instructing his disciples to “write” ANYTHING!
Please; point it out for me.
Where are the worries over Sola Rome?
Sola POPE??
And Sola Church???
Why do you LIE about me?
Why do you LIE about the Gospels?
I’ve provided both Gospel and Letters to make my points.
None of you have provided a Gospel quote of Christ instructing his disciples to “write” anything.
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.