...A Concern for the Protestant “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.

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

In case you don’t understand, household includes children and infants and was the practice of the Catholic Church from the beginning. Can you cite any requirement that only adults can be baptized?

When you talk about the Catholic church "from the beginning" baptizing infants, do you mean the Roman Catholic church from the fourth century? Because we have documentation that shows many of the early church fathers DIDN'T hold to that. From https://www.christian-history.org/infant-baptism.html, we learn:

Ay, there's the rub. We know nothing, really, about whether the apostles baptized infants. For all the arguments and the supposedly clear statements of Scripture, there is no good and certain proof that infant baptism is or is not apostolic.

We know that Paul baptized the Philippian jailer's household and Peter baptized Cornelius' household. Did that include infants? If you think you know, then you're too confident. (Sorry, but you are.)

Those opposed to infant baptism argue that only believers should be baptized. That argument is valid, but it is not conclusive. The Scripture do talk about believing and being baptized, but that is not a strong enough argument to know that they didn't make exceptions for babies of believers. This is especially true since Paul compares baptism to circumcision, which was done to infants. Paul called baptism the circumcision of Christ, in Col. 2:11-12. Of course, some would deny this, saying that the reference to circumcision and baptism are separate there, even though I personally think the connection is obvious.

On the other hand, the historical evidence seems to lean very strongly in the favor of those against the baptism of infants. It doesn't seem that hard to put our finger on just when the practice arose, and it is not in the apostolic age.

When Did Infant Baptism Begin in the Church

We know that pretty much all churches were baptizing infants by the mid-3rd century. Hippolytus and Origen speak rather generally of infant baptism in the couple decades before 250, and Cyprian discusses on which day infants should be baptized, not whether they should be baptized:

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within [i.e., before] the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. (Cyprian, Letter 58:2 from Ante-Nicene Fathers)

Before the time of Origen and Hippolytus, it's much harder to know. No one speaks clearly of infant baptism in the 2nd century, for or against. However, Justin Martyr does give a reason for baptism that absolutely precludes infant baptism, and he says that the church in Rome received it from the apostles.

This quote is from approximately A.D. 155:

And for [water baptism] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed. (Justin, First Apology 61)

Here, Justin specifically contrasts water baptism with the lack of choice that we had as children, and he says that the apostles taught that this was the very reason for water baptism.

Infant baptism can't fulfill that purpose. In fact, it's contrary to it.

It is fascinating that Justin is part of the church in Rome! It's the Roman Catholic Church that says that infant baptism was taught since the time of the apostles. They even produce quotes from "early" church fathers to support it. Yet this, the earliest quote that could be applied to infant baptism, given in the city of Rome, is ignored! That is typical of Catholic apologists.

What about between A.D. 155 and A.D. 230 (or so)? Well, there we have two quotes to work from. One, from Irenaeus around the year 185, is almost certainly pro-infant baptism, and the other, from Tertullian around 210, addresses infant baptism directly and disagrees with it. Irenaeus, c. A.D. 185:

He came to save all through means of Himself—all … who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission … (Against Heresies II:22:4)

Note here that the term "born again" was synonymous with baptism to early Christians. That really didn't change until the time of the pietists in the 17th century. (Use the "Contact Me" button to the left if you can find a reliable, accurate reference to an original pre-17th century document that separates the term "born again" from baptism. I'd be happy to see it.)

For example, in the quote from Justin above, he mentions that "we" have been "regenerated" in the waters of baptism. "Regenerated" is just another way of saying born again.

Thus, by mentioning infants being born again, that's an almost certain reference to infant baptism from Irenaeus. I'm really never ready to make definitive statements, however, by inference. This is clear inference, but it's inference nonetheless.

Tertullian, c. A.D. 210: No inference here; he's very clear:

According to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. … The Lord does indeed say, "Do not forbid them to come to me." Let them come, then, while they are growing up! Let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning where to come to! Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.† Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? … Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem to have given "to him that asks." (On Baptism 18)

Well, that's clear. Tertullian was against infant baptism. So when exactly did infant baptism begin? It's hard to know for certain, but I suspect we will not be far off if we suggest that it began in the late 2nd century, gaining widespread acceptance by the mid 3rd century.

Infants and Sin

The argument of many would be that infants need to be baptized because of original sin. The Roman Catholic idea of original sin simply does not appear in the 2nd century writings of the church, which is one more argument that infant baptism wasn't widespread until the 3rd century. However, it is worth looking at the comments of the early Christians about infants and sin while we are touching on infant baptism.

Origen, between A.D. 225 and 250, clearly held to some idea of infants being tainted with sin:

But the prophets, who have given some wise suggestions on the subject of things produced by generation, tell us that a sacrifice for sin was offered even for newborn infants, as not being free from sin. They say, "I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me;" [Ps. 51:5] also, "They are estranged from the womb;" which is followed by the singular expression, "They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." [Ps. 58:3] (Origen, Against Celsus VII:50, c. A.D. 225)

These are good arguments for sin in infants, but there are answers to those who do not want to adopt a 3rd century view of the lack of innocence in infants. For example, the Scriptures also say that God has perfected praise in babes and sucklings (Ps. 8:2, LXX, as quoted by Jesus in Matt. 21:16). Also, in Ps. 58:3, one of the verses quoted by Origen, it is "the wicked" who go astray from the womb, not a general "they."

Earlier, though, I see no indication that Christians agreed with Origen. Obviously they did later, as the quotes from Cyprian indicated.

Here's Irenaeus, a half century before Origen, speaking of Herod's slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem. I love Irenaeus' perspective, who feels that those children were blessed as martyrs for Christ!

He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that he might send them on before into his kingdom; He, since he was himself an infant, so arranging it that human infants should be martyrs, slain, according to the Scriptures, for the sake of Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judah, in the city of David. (Against Heresies III:16:4)

If that is not clear enough, he adds:

Who are they that have been saved and received the inheritance? Those, doubtless, who do believe God, and who have continued in his love … and innocent children, who have had no sense of evil. But who are they that are saved now, and receive life eternal? Is it not those who love God, and who believe his promises, and who in malice have become as little children? (ibid. IV:28:3)

This sort of thinking is typical of 2nd century writers.

If you want to compare the Jewish rite of circumcision to baptism, then remember only little BOY babies were circumcised. There is NO documented evidence that the Apostles baptized infants and NOTHING from that time that suggests they did so. At least admit that.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not entitled to change the facts of Jesus and the Catholic Church teachings.

The teachings if the Roman church are not facts. If not in Scripture, they are only men's opinions.

I realize that Luther and others rejected some of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles and His Church, and tried to rely only on the Bible. Even the Bible says not all is contained in the Bible.

Luther rejected nothing in Scripture.
That not all is in the Bible is not a blank check to believe anything as if it was. God gave us what he wanted us to know.

At times Fundamentalists talk as if they thought no case could be made for the Catholic faith.

There is no case that can be made for syncretic paganism. Ever.

If you think Catholics worship Mary, pray to statues, and claim the pope is equal to God, then you aren’t rejecting Catholicism, but someone’s misrepresentation of it.

Romans idolize Mary, pray to statues, etc.

Since the Reformers rejected the papacy, they also rejected the teaching authority of the Church.

This is a foolish and non-factual statement. The Reformers and Christians today understand that God gifted the church with TEACHERS, among other gifts to the church.

They looked elsewhere for the rule of faith and thought they found it solely in the Bible. Its interpretation would be left to the individual reader, guided by the Holy Spirit.

Thankfully, believers do have the Holy Spirit's guidance into truth, but believers also have local churches that God has gifted with teachers, according to Scripture.

But reason and experience tell us that the Bible could not have been intended as each man’s private guide to the truth. If individual guidance by the Holy Spirit were a reality, everyone would understand the same thing from the Bible—since God cannot teach error. But Christians have understood contradictory things from Scripture. Fundamentalists even differ among themselves in what they think the Bible says.

Again, this is a false understanding of truth. Believers in different congregations have some differences in non-essentials. They have unity in the Body of Christ over non-essentials.

The Bible also tells us that private interpretation is not to be the rule for understanding the Bible.

Again, you need to actually read this passage and apply your mind. It does not say this. It says prophecy originated in God and did not originate in private sources. May I ask, just how many courses in Bible have you taken? I've seen people mention you are a priest. Based on this, I'm doubting it.

Later he warns what can happen if a person ignorantly approaches Scripture on his own or is unstable in clinging to the apostolic teachings he has received. He states of Paul’s letters, “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16).

That some ignorant (including priests, cardinals, popes, etc.) twist scripture is not the same as saying anything about approaching Scripture on his own. The believer is commanded to study to show himself approved. He is commanded to love God with all his mind.

The Bible also denies that it is sufficient as the Church’s rule of faith. Paul acknowledges that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2).

First, this is absolutely a false statement.
Second, this would be a wonderful opportunity for YOU to share the list of official traditions! What are they ADSUM??
Of course, no one can know this because they are not written down and not falsifiable or verifiable.

Why not write to Catholic Answers for additional information and tracts? Either your suspicions will be confirmed, or you will discover that there is more to Catholicism than you once thought.

Because it supports syncretic paganism and not Scriptural truth.

Click here to read both sides

The apostolic Church baptized whole “households” (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants.

You know...if you are a Roman Catholic priest you are committing a grave error in your handling of the Scriptures.

The context of the passage refutes your claim that infants were baptized. It also refutes the Roman Catholic claim that one is saved through baptism.

25But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; 26and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were unfastened. 27When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.

28But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!” 29And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,

30and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly,

having believed in God with his whole household.

Acts 16:25-34 NASB

The jailer and his household all believed. The text is clear on this.

For your position to be correct the following has to be in place:

there are infants in the household though none are mentioned in the passage above.

if an infant were present you're expecting us to believe a two month old can understand what Paul is saying and can affirm in the positive or negative they want to believe.

You are practicing eisegesis....the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

In addition to taking the verse out of context, it is one of the most damaging ways to handle the Scriptures.

I really do hope you are not a priest in any denomination if you cannot handle the Scriptures any better than you have demonstrated thus far.

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.

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