5 Solas

[Maximus]

One of the things that drove me from Protestantism was Sola Scriptura, a truly untenable doctrine. I realized that if Sola Scriptura were true, there would be no New Testament and probably not much of an Old Testament either.

Why?

Because none of the individual books of Scripture names all of the other books or gives any indication which if any of them is inspired. In other words, there is no verse in Scripture anywhere that says, "Thus saith the Lord, the following is a list of the written works I have inspired and which are to be regarded as Scripture . . . "

The only way we know which books are Scripture is through the Church's Holy Apostolic Tradition. Without it, no Bible.

 

[Maggie893]

THESIS ONE: SOLA SCRIPTURA[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation,which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian's conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.[/font]

THESIS TWO: SOLUS CHRISTUS[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
We reaffirm that our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father.

We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ's substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.[/font]

THESIS THREE: SOLA GRATIA[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God's wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life.

We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature.[/font]

THESIS FOUR: SOLA FIDE[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
We reaffirm that justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God's perfect justice.

We deny that justification rests on any merit to be found in us, or upon the grounds of an infusion of Christ's righteousness in us, or that an institution claiming to be a church that denies or condemns sola fide can be recognized as a legitimate church.[/font]

THESIS FIVE: SOLI DEO GLORIA[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
We reaffirm that because salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God, it is for God's glory and that we must glorify him always. We must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God and for his glory alone.

We deny that we can properly glorify God if our worship is confused with entertainment, if we neglect either Law or Gospel in our preaching, or if self-improvement, self-esteem or self-fulfillment are allowed to become alternatives to the gospel.

From The Cambridge Declaration​

of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][/font]

Ok maybe I'm missing something but don't these phrases that I have bolded defeat the construction of this Statement of the Evangelicals?

How can you say .... no creed, but if you don't believe this statement then you aren't a church....doesn't that insinuate that this is a creed.

 

[ps139]

How can you say .... no creed, but if you don't believe this statement then you aren't a church....doesn't that insinuate that this is a creed.

Good point!

A creed is simply a list of beliefs. "Credo," "credere" mean "I believe," "to believe" etc. Something "incredible means "unbelievable."
So to make a list of beliefs, saying that no list of beliefs apply to you... well then why make the list in the first place.
it reminds me of when people say "the only rule, is that there are no rules." !

Also if sola scriptura means that councils have no authority, then how can you know if Revelation is inspired? It barely made it in Scripture! And how would you know that the Epistle of Clement to the Romans is not inspired?
Without councils to put the Bible together we can not know if what we are reading is really inspired Scripture or not.
I just find it ironic that "Bible only" would deny the authority of councils which put the Bible together, and without which, there would be no Bible.

 

[ps139]

I guess I can sum it up accurately by saying that if sola scriptura were true, there would be no such thing as scriptura.

 

[Maggie893]

A creed is simply a list of beliefs. "Credo," "credere" mean "I believe," "to believe" etc. Something "incredible means "unbelievable."
So to make a list of beliefs, saying that no list of beliefs apply to you... well then why make the list in the first place.
it reminds me of when people say "the only rule, is that there are no rules." !

Exactly! This appears to me to be one more effort to say....I don't have to follow your rules so I'll make up my own rules so I can prove that I'm not following your rules.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Ok maybe I'm missing something but don't these phrases that I have bolded defeat the construction of this Statement of the Evangelicals?

How can you say .... no creed, but if you don't believe this statement then you aren't a church....doesn't that insinuate that this is a creed.

Im guessing these are what are considered 'fundamental truths' reject one and you become a house of cards. You should right them a letter at the link provided and let them know that

 

[bigsierra]

Im guessing these are what are considered 'fundamental truths' reject one and you become a house of cards. You should right them a letter at the link provided and let them know that

Do you think they would listen?

 

[RobNJ]

And historically and biblically speaking- there are is only 1 sola taught in the bible and that is- "We are saved by grace alone." There isn’t any instance where the bible says we are saved by the bible alone- that we are saved by faith alone, that we are saved by the glory of God alone that we are saved by infused righteousness alone. The bible clearly says in the epistle of James that we are NOT save by faith alone.

So not only does those other 4 solas contradict each other by attaching the “alone and only” meaning on to them but they contradict the scripture rather plainly. Especially since we read the CHURCH is the pillar of truth and especially since we read that it is grace saves alone a saves and not faith alone.

One point that hasn't been brought up... the Solas taken as one chain, instead of 5 seperate entities make a litte more sense... I was taught them as: Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, revealed through scripture alone, for the glory of God alone.

 

[tigersnare]

Ok maybe I'm missing something but don't these phrases that I have bolded defeat the construction of this Statement of the Evangelicals?

How can you say .... no creed, but if you don't believe this statement then you aren't a church....doesn't that insinuate that this is a creed.

I think you are missing something. The statement does not say the Church is to not have creeds. It says, quite plainly, that only scripture can bind the conscience, teaches what is necessary for salvation, and the standard by which Christian behaivior is measured.

 

[tigersnare]

I think some of you just arn't even trying here. There are some very bright people making some very elementary mistakes in their understanding of what has been posted. I'll leave you to burn more strawmen.

 

[Paul S]

I think you are missing something. The statement does not say the Church is to not have creeds. It says, quite plainly, that only scripture can bind the conscience, teaches what is necessary for salvation, and the standard by which Christian behaivior is measured.

Where in Scripture does it say this?

 

[IM3RD]

Where in Scripture does it say this?

That might be the VERY FIRST time I've ever heard a Catholic say that!!!

 

[StarSapphire]

Sola Scriptura means that you use the Bible alone for doctrine.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Do you think they would listen?

who?

 

[tigersnare]

Where in Scripture does it say this?

Sorry not biting, I'm not here to defend sola scriptura. I was merely stating what the position of the Reformers were.

 

[Maximus]

Sola Scriptura means that you use the Bible alone for doctrine.

If one really does that, however, that one cannot believe in Sola Scriptura, because Sola Scriptura isn't taught in the Bible.

Besides that, the canon of Scripture is a matter of doctrine, and the Bible itself never indicates which books belong in the canon. That means there is at least one doctrine - the canon - which comes from outside, and therefore above and beyond, Scripture.

And if we can find even one Christian doctrine that comes from some source other than Scripture, then Sola Scriptura is Solo Basura (but that's Spanish).

 

[Xpycoctomos]

THESIS ONE: SOLA SCRIPTURA[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation,which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian's conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.[/font]

I can't imagine that Luther would agree with such a definition as bolded above. I know Lord's Envoy are not Lutheran, but being the Martin did coin the term, I find it interesting to read this spin on Sola Scriptura.

I guess it really doesn't matter though. Like a lot of converts from protestantism (Like Maximus just posted), Sola Scriptura was what convinced me I could no longer be Lutheran.

 

[Paul S]

I guess it really doesn't matter though. Like a lot of converts from protestantism (Like Maximus just posted), Sola Scriptura was what convinced me I could no longer be Lutheran.

What convinced you that Sola Scriptura wasn't true?

 

[Rising_Suns]

I think some of you just arn't even trying here. There are some very bright people making some very elementary mistakes in their understanding of what has been posted. I'll leave you to burn more strawmen.

I suppose now would be a good time to remind everyone of a board where anti-Catholic persecution is rampid; such a board will help keep you on your toes.


www.Christianity.com

 

[Maggie893]

I think you are missing something. The statement does not say the Church is to not have creeds. It says, quite plainly, that only scripture can bind the conscience, teaches what is necessary for salvation, and the standard by which Christian behaivior is measured.

Tigersnare, my point is that the text says that creeds can not bind conscience however the following text says that a church that does not believe sola fide can not be considered a church. Doesn't that insinuate that the "creed" of sola fide must bind the christian's conscience? If it doesn't bind the christian conscience then they are of unbelief and not in keeping with "the church".

I think some of you just arn't even trying here. There are some very bright people making some very elementary mistakes in their understanding of what has been posted. I'll leave you to burn more strawmen.

You suggest that we are not "trying". Trying to do what? I am not attempting to discuss the 5 solas themselves as they have been clearly refuted for centuries by the Catholic Church. Several people had already clearly stated the Church's stance, which is of course mine as well. My comments were directed at the Statement by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals which was written in 1996. Their article statements are confounded by the solas themselves. Clearly a work of men (inspired by God? Impossible if their own statements are to be believed.) and contradictory to it's intent.

Please understand Tigersnare I am not unable or unwilling to understand these concepts. I was Protestant once after all and believed them to be true, until I sat down and really prayed, read scripture and the Church's teachings. I then realized that the nature of these concepts was not found in God but in men.