5 Solas

GingerBeer said:

That's one long reply and I don't exactly see how it relates very well to what I wrote.

I think that the truth is that people read their bible abd believe some of it and also subliminally reject a great deal of it. That is the only way that people can sustain faith in a loving God who forgives without getting overwhelmed by thoughts of hell and fire and eternal punishment for wrongdoers. And all the events in the old testament and some in the new testament that are distasteful, horrific, or otherwise terrible get pushed to the back of one's mind so that God can be worshiped as loving, kind, generous, and compassionate. So the idea that the bible is a perfect book with every word and every thought absolute truth that is to be unquestioningly accepted as true and applicable in some sense to today's Christian living in today's world is, in my opinion, fundamentally unsound.

Click to expand...

That’s why I added that disqualifier.

LoreneDD said:

Only if the 'nuanced rich doctrines directly or indirectly by implication taught from the Scriptures alone’ include all scripture, not cherry-picked.

Click to expand...

The bible is an account of good old nature, bad old nature, what satan is doing, what God is doing to counteract satan .... all taken from flesh, passed thru the mind of intelligence to get to a place of spirituality. But if some are stuck in flesh and that’s their idol, or some are controlled by human reasoning so that the spiritual is lacking ... then of course everyone will be on different levels of truth. People only understand what has been revealed to them. Leaving behind the flesh and worldly thinking isn’t profitable to many. Or maybe minds are darkened like the OT examples as the bible says Ephesians 4:22-32

LoreneDD said:

Only if the 'nuanced rich doctrines directly or indirectly by implication taught from the Scriptures alone’ include all scripture, not cherry-picked.

Click to expand...

Technically not all Scripture, although there are supporting Old Testament passages and complimentary messages through stories, the Solas are primarily established by the New Testament. Yes context is always crucial, and interpreting Scripture with Scripture in a hermeneutical spiral is helpful towards sound exegesis.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

Technically not all Scripture, although there are supporting Old Testament passages and complimentary messages through stories, the Solas are primarily established by the New Testament. Yes context is always crucial, and interpreting Scripture with Scripture in a hermeneutical spiral is helpful towards sound exegesis.

Click to expand...

Says who? There’s so much that is in the NT that is only supported by going to the OT to find the spiritual meaning. On it’s own it’s meaningless and serves only to support the fleshly, humanistic traits not found in the one true God save in picture form. So if you have a sola-scripture based on the NT only it would be good to at least include the Psalms for reference to apply the spiritual to.

LoreneDD said:

Says who? There’s so much that is in the NT that is only supported by going to the OT to find the spiritual meaning. On it’s own it’s meaningless and serves only to support the fleshly, humanistic traits not found in the one true God save in picture form. So if you have a sola-scripture based on the NT only it would be good to at least include the Psalms for reference to apply the spiritual to.

Click to expand...

Except I did not say "NT only", I said primarily. Sorry, but I do not consider the righteousness of God in Christ applied to the believer in spiritual regeneration to be meaningless, nor a support to the flesh, rather just the opposite.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

Except I did not say "NT only", I said primarily. Sorry, but I do not consider the righteousness of God in Christ applied to the believer in spiritual regeneration to be meaningless, nor a support to the flesh, rather just the opposite.

Click to expand...

What I’m saying is that the mystery revealed doesn’t exist in a vacuum. And that I believe that a knowledge of old and new are necessary for the complementation. I have never heard it said before that sola-scriptura is based primarily on NT. That’s not something that I would ever agree with. But primarily my point was that it cannot be promoting some verses that are contradicted by other verses and leave that contravesy left in limbo thereby pitting one verse against another. In effect one Christian against another using scripture to do so.

friend of said:

How exactly does RC theology disagree with #5?

Click to expand...

I think #5 probably had (or has, I hope) a lot to do with the "theology of glory" versus the "theology of the cross" that Luther was particularly strong on, and I think the other Reformers did follow suite.

The idea here is that a "theology of glory" is one where mankind or specific people are glorified because of their own virtue / good works. They have successfully climbed the spiritual ladder. Whereas the original Reformers were always talking about how the cross saves by no work, therefore God gets the glory for salvation, not mankind in any way. We aren't supposed to be climbing a spiritual ladder. This is a "theology of the cross".

Hence, God saves for his own glory, not to glorify man.

It's my understanding that #5 also developed later. I think probably as the result of Theodore Beza's work.

LoreneDD said:

I have never heard it said before that sola-scriptura is based primarily on NT. That’s not something that I would ever agree with.

Click to expand...

That is also not what I said, I said "(with the exception of Sola Scriptura)", talk about cherry picking and twisting....

Sola Scriptura can be supported but not proven with Scripture. However, without the Scriptures, we would have no knowledge of Christ, natural revelation is rather vague and limited in what can be deduced from it. So it is by the Scriptures alone we learn about and come to know Christ.

Sola Scriptura, is a properly basic belief, an axiom essential to knowledge concerning essential doctrines in Scripture including the exclusively Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

Much interpretation sounds impressive but has very little substance because of the missed value due to poor application. Hermeneutics must be logical and well supported by a heartfelt searching of the scriptures to be sure the advise is of God and not from someone’s own imaginative wisdom. Not only that but it must also be applicable in a personal way to God and oneself. Not conducive to man-made rules iow.

Gracia Singh said:

CF is kind of interesting.

Apparently trying save someone from Apostolic Christian Faith is a-ok. As is infering that Catholics and Orthodox Christians are not Christians. And to describe the Pope (another Nicene Christian), as the anti-Christ / Beast, or as a non-Christian.

That's kind of sad.

Click to expand...

This assumes that the Catholic faith and the Eastern Orthodox faith are apostolic, which is one of the points of contention. There are many Catholic doctrines that didn't even exist back then. And there are obviously enough points of contention between the Catholics and the EO where you guys aren't one, even though you both claim to have "apostolic faith".

As for inferring that RCC and EO aren't Christians, all through out this thread and the others the RCC and the EO have continually accused Protestants of having a made up faith, a faith that only exists because of the delusions of some monk, a faith that splintered Christianity (although if it splintered it, the church isn't one at the moment). How is that different from what we're doing? Those of us who have studied Catholicism or who have been Catholic and left see the unbiblical nature of much of Catholic teaching and want to warn her. If accusing the other's faith of unbiblical is accusing someone else of not being Christian, the RCC and the EO on this board are just as guilty.

Tree of Life said:

This thread is dedicated to @Mary Meg

Click to expand...

Wow, I go to bed early and wake up famous.

Tree of Life said:

How do you know whether or not you should be a Protestant? Let's take a look at where Protestantism began - with the Five Solas. All Reformational theology flows from these five principles, which are actually five objections to Roman Catholic theology.

Click to expand...

See, it kind of troubles me that Protestantism exists, it originated, solely as an objection to something else.

I'm not ready to say that I object to Protestantism as a whole. You and others have pointed out, and I do appreciate it, that there's more to Protestantism than I've known.

So take a look at each of these and see how it sits with you. If you agree with these, you are not Roman Catholic and could never be. But if you disagree with them, you're not being biblical! Sorry, had to reveal my bias there.

Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think anybody had any doubt about your bias.

1. Sola Scriptura - The Bible alone is the word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Click to expand...

Sure, as long as that doesn't mean you want to toss out other sources of information like the Church Fathers (and people have pointed out that it doesn't have to mean that).

2. Solus Christus - Jesus Christ is the only savior of sinners and his atoning sacrifice is sufficient to save them.

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that.

3. Sola Gratia - Our salvation is not earned in any part; it is a free gift of God from start to finish.

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that.

4. Sola Fide - We are forgiven our sins and counted righteous in God’s sight solely by trusting in Christ.

Click to expand...

I believe this one by default -- but I am thinking it's a little more complicated than, "You just have to believe [pray this prayer] and don't have to do anything else." I am still studying.

5. Soli Deo Gloria - The ultimate end of all God’s works in creation and redemption is his own glory alone.

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that.

Don't make me cry by trying to deny any of these wonderful doctrines.

Click to expand...

I don't want to make you cry!

GingerBeer said:

That's one long reply and I don't exactly see how it relates very well to what I wrote.

I think that the truth is that people read their bible and believe some of it and also subliminally reject a great deal of it. That is the only way that people can sustain faith in a loving God who forgives without getting overwhelmed by thoughts of hell and fire and eternal punishment for wrongdoers. And all the events in the old testament and some in the new testament that are distasteful, horrific, or otherwise terrible get pushed to the back of one's mind so that God can be worshiped as loving, kind, generous, and compassionate. So the idea that the bible is a perfect book with every word and every thought absolute truth that is to be unquestioningly accepted as true and applicable in some sense to today's Christian living in today's world is, in my opinion, fundamentally unsound.

Click to expand...

Do most Catholics believe this way? Im learning that a lot of the EO tend to interpret the OT bible more literally.

Chris V++ said:

Do most Catholics believe this way? Im learning that a lot of the EO tend to interpret the OT bible more literally.

Click to expand...

Yeah, probably. Theologically liberal Protestants see the Bible similarly.

Tree of Life said:

She's in danger of converting to Rome.

Click to expand...

I like to think I'm in a safe place if I've seeking to follow God... wherever that leads. But I don't think I'm on the verge of converting to anything right now.

MDC said:

5 solas is definitely biblical and is why popery hates it. Coming from holding traditions of men above scripture, what would popery know of what’s biblical truth? 5 solas separates the sheep from the goats. Scripture alone in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone and for Gods glory alone!

Click to expand...

If there's any one thing I'm noticing in these threads, it's that in general, there are more Protestants who viciously attack Catholicism than vice versa (not saying either side is all polite or all mean).

I guess that's the nature of "protesting"?

(Also that these posts tend to be angry, name-calling, and poorly supported... as if vehemence alone is supposed to win an argument.)

I have school today but I'll reply more later.

Tree of Life said:

When someone who is not familiar with church history begins to wade into it, they may initially question their Protestantism. But a deeper study of both history and theology will only strengthen it.

Click to expand...

If you are your sister’s keeper then you assume she is so young she needs a guardian. If that be the case the bible has a very well-developed theme of governor (law) within the bible to mature (grace) her.