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
“Whether you’re right or wrong about the material, I don’t know, but your interpretation has not been my experience so far.”
Your experience is not the yardstick of truth.
“What I’ve read has been helpful for my understanding and for clearing up some of my old confusion, while adding some new, basically leaving me much better off than it found me.”
That encapsulates the siren song of false teaching.
If your church is to be carried by apostles, you could use a pope with a little more LeBron and less Francis.
But, for me, it is also my personal “by their fruits” test of the material and, for me, the resulting data doesn’t agree with your hypothesis about the material... so far.
Whether it’s a siren song of false teachings or something else, I don’t know yet.
It’s funny, when I first found it, I was beyond excited by what I found. I believed it, and not only that, I was sure everyone else, all Protestants, would have the same reaction to the material that I was having.
Honestly, I was more than a little surprised, shocked even, to discover that was definitely not the case. Not even close. Lol!
“Naive, with little to no guile, is no way to go through life, son”, but here I am.
I came from a home that was vaguely Lutheran, but my desire has always been to follow Jesus, wherever that may lead, and even if that included the Catholic Church. And there were even two different times in my life where I seriously looked into the Catholic Church. I grew up in an extremely Catholic area, almost entirely Catholic, and for a period of years, even after I found that following Jesus hadn’t led me to the Catholic Church, I still regularly listened to Catholic radio and watched EWTN, and also did things like read Mother Angelica’s biography.
Now what you write here strikes me as vague, but it seems in a round-about way without actually saying it you’re repeating the charge made by the Catholic priest here and repeated by yourself that somehow Protestants including myself reject what Jesus says about works.
But as I said, Protestant belief accepts all God has to say. He says a great deal about works in His Word, and not just in James 2. Such as:
“Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” 2 Timothy 2:19
To be born again, recognizing the Lord’s sacrifice for us and experiencing His love for us, should mean we want to learn from God what He wants us to do. As Jesus did, we should have a hunger to do His will.
So once again, it’s a matter of the Catholic belief on faith and works which separates them that’s the issue, so the works are seen to be done by a person’s own resources apart from God, rather than just coming out of faith given to us by God.
That Catholic idea that separates faith and works also opens the door to universalism, which I’ve often seen with Catholics, that any “good works,” especially works of charity, are taken by them as proof of the goodness of a person, and what that person believes about Christ matters less. So in that view, then, an atheist or a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist who do “good works” have proven themselves to be good people who don’t necessarily need Christ because they, too, are doing works. The truth about man’s sinful nature, the real motives of the human heart, and that whatever is not of faith is sin, are then lost.
Now when works are seen properly as just coming from faith, which we’re dependent on the Lord for, they’re just part of being born again in Christ, of being new creations and part of His Kingdom. They’re natural for one’s new nature.
Blessings to you FRiend.
I wish you the fullness of Christ and the joy of eternity with Him.
Well, I don’t know what your experience is.
My experience when reading Scripture is also excitement, and having to swallow a lot of pride sometimes.
I think one issue that a lot of people have is that they want to read their own biases into Scripture, and really REALLY don’t want to admit that they might be wrong.
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)
Amazing how Luke traveled with Paul, wrote two accounts of what all he'd learned and seen and not once do we find a good part of Roman Catholicism in either of his writings.
Do you just ignore the words of those early church leaders who did NOT agree that babies should be baptized? You claimed infant baptism was something the Catholic church held to from the beginning. That was shown to be false.
Good catch! Deception by omission no less.
There is a difference in general definition, in which mysticism usually refers to an spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, of ethereal import not apparent to the senses. Both can be broadly classed as supernatural, but supernatural acts of God are manifest miracles which violate natural laws. And which the living and true God is still doing, glory be to Him.
But the source of miracles by themselves are subject to testing by established Divine revelation, which miracles either confirm or contradict, being of God or the devil, as with the Egyptian magicians vs Moses.
Likewise the claim of any purported Divine revelation is subject to testing by established Divine revelation, which Scripture most assuredly is. And my reproof of you was that of your recourse of appeal to mysticism in order to support that which must be taught by the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, but which is not. Thus your appeal is more specious than that of Catholics whose recourse is to the uninspired words of men as determinitive of what the NT church believed.
I’ve always been a believer, just not a Bible understander. I had exposure to it, but the King James Bible was something I just didn’t get. Much later in life, I read the One Day at a Time Bible for 1999, but can’t say that I fully got it even then.
Fortunately, the Holy Spirit opened my understanding a bit with several books, especially The Harbinger. That book changed my perspective a bit or something, because from then on, the Bible became real, but also in a practical way.
Everything I’ve read since then has enhanced that :the Bible is Real” experience, with the TLIG messages most of all.
My hobby and major time consumer became trying to figure out where we are in the story we were born into, as that’s what I think the Bible is.
It tells out story, beginning to end, while explaining and predicting pretty much everything.
Revelation and related prophecy stuff hooks me like a large mouth bass swallowing the lure.
The parts about “how and why things go wrong” are also irresistible.
Pretty much everything about the Bible I’ve come to see as being remarkable in some way.
I've notice this pattern among Roman Catholicism. They claim non-Catholics cherry pick Scriptures...yet, it is the Roman Catholic who is cherry picking the ECFs.
What I've noticed about the ECFs is their consistent inconsistency.
Let me know if you get something other than the standard answer.
Again, just WHO had Holy Spirit inspire the writers of Scripture, if not the Christ who in John said He would speak by His Spirit?
And just what kind of Catholic are you who restricts the authoritative word of God to the gospels (since these are the books you allow for providing a citation of Christ instructing his disciples to write)?
The issue is whether or not Christ had men write His revelation, and the answer is clear that He did. Do you deny that?
Why do you continue to refuse to answer these questions What's to hide?
Well and truly stated! Hear here!
The Priest seeks to protect his faux authority, as if he has been authorized to impart ‘Christian nature/fate’ via infant baptism by a Catholic Priest. Pride is usually at the root of heresy.
Search the Word of God for these ... and when you find exactly none, awaken to the tragedy of Catholic Traditions leading too many astray.
Why do you LIE about me?
How have I done so? Have you not restricted the source of a citation of Christ instructing his disciples to write His word to just the gospels? Yes or no?
And since my statement which you originally denied was that “did not Christ tell the Holy Spirit to inspire the writers to pen the revelation of Scripture," then just where do you get off restricting the evidence for this to an actual quote from a gospel, and refuse to answer the question, "Then just WHO had Holy Spirit inspire the writers of Scripture?"
Why do you LIE about the Gospels?
Which is another fallacious charge (and in violation of RF rules BTW). Do you deny what I said, that John is a gospel, in which Christ promised He would provide more revelation by the Spirit, and if Scripture is inspired of God, then was not Christ the one having these words written? And do not the gospels abound with OT quotes and references, affirming that God chose writing to be His most reliable means of authoritative preservation.
I’ve provided both Gospel and Letters to make my points.
Then you are using a double standard, or you have some explaining to do as to why you restricted the source of a citation of Christ instructing his disciples to write His word to just the gospels, even though i did not in my statement which you objected to.
None of you have provided a Gospel quote of Christ instructing his disciples to “write” anything. Which only indicates you are some kind of Catholic who restricts the authoritative word of God to the gospels - at least when you need to, and refuses to answer questions that result.
The issue is whether or not Christ had men write His revelation, and the answer is clear that He did.
How are you doing so far? ... Um, looks like you’re still in need of milk feeding. Catholicism is offering soured curds. Don’t swallow them.
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.