Defending Protestant Theology.

[Neostarwcc]

Okay so my wife and I were discussing last night about how the basic theologies of Protestantism were found in scripture and that we should make a topic defending it so, here it goes.

I don't need to defend Eternal security because there are already a bazillion threads on the issue at the moment and this thread would easily get to 100+ pages in a week but I would like to defend Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.

First Sola Fide. The fact of the matter is Sola Fide wasn't just believed/taught by Luther and Protestants throughout history it was in fact, believed by the Early Church and the Apostles as well. Yes, even the Catholic Church. The very first pope, Pope Clement I believed in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. The only difference is though, the Early church did not believe that we couldn't lose our salvation by a lack of faith and Luther defended and started the argument that we CANNOT lose our salvation for ANY reason. This particular belief did not start in the church until Luther (And it is argued that the apostles taught it but that it died with the church after they all died) but it is scriptural. Mainly because of these verses in scripture (John 6:37-40, John 10:28-29, John 5:24, Revelation 3:5, Revelation 21:7, Hebrews 10:10, 1 John 5:10-13, 1 Peter 1:4-5 & more.) Yes, even in Hebrews and John's letters where the so called "offending" verses were contained there were verses stating when you receive the Holy Spirit you receive it FOREVER and you HAVE eternal life FOREVER and were sanctified ONCE FOR ALL TIME even Christ himself said it (John 14:16). Peter said it, Paul said it (Ephesians 1:13-14, & Romans 8:9) John said it, The writer of Hebrews said it, the list just goes on and on.

So tell me, if we have the Holy Spirit for forever, and we are sealed by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation for forever, just how is it that we can lose our salvation again? Was the Early church and the church today who believes that you can lose your salvation by lack of faith trying to claim that the Holy Spirit will be living inside of us when we go to Hades, or the Lake of Fire? Because if they are, that sounds preposterous! How could this have been taught by the Early church?

So far there has not been a single viable argument that Christians who do believe that you can lose your salvation by a lack of faith or that Sola Fide is a false doctrine can come up with that has satisfied Protestants or really anybody else capable of reading and applying the Bible as a whole (and we've been fighting about these topics for over 500 years now). However, Protestants can explain each and every offending verse in scripture because otherwise the Reformation would have died years and years ago since we believe in Sola Scriptura as well which, I'll get to in a moment. So, after saying all of this why is it that Protestants and Luther aren't right about scripture again? Especially when literally ALL of our basic teachings are taught THROUGHOUT the Bible? Just because our church is divided by people who are pro abortion, pro gay rights, pro women pastors, pro feminism, and other minor issues does NOT mean that we don't agree with each other on these basic points and it does NOT mean that Protestantism is a false church or w/e other Christians who disagree with the Reformation claim it to be. It also doesn't mean that those of us Protestants that do believe in Sola Scriptura should NOT defend the Bible say that those particular beliefs are WRONG and against God because the Bible teaches that they are from Genesis to Revelation.


Now that we've covered the part of Sola Fide that says that you cannot lose your salvation let's take a look at what the Bible says salvation even is. The Bible says that salvation is by grace through faith (Romans 4:1-25, Romans 3:28, Ephesians 2:8-10, Acts 16:31, John 3:16, 1 John 5:10-13, Philippians 3:9, John 5:24, to name a few)

While it's true that the words faith alone are never stated anywhere in the Bible it is implied throughout scripture. Nowhere in scripture does it say that we are saved by our faith + works, or by our faith + baptism or by our faith + anything. The Bible just says faith. When Paul was asked by the Jailer "Sir, what must I do to be saved?" notice Paul didn't say "You have to be baptized or you have to do good works...etc" he said "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household."

In Romans 10:13 Paul states that EVERYONE who calls upon the name of the Lord WILL be saved and this matches up with what Christ says in John 6:37 where Christ promises not to cast a SINGLE person out.

When the thief on the cross was saved by Christ, he was saved by his faith. He didn't have a chance to do any works or baptism because he was condemned to death along with Jesus. Yet, he is with Christ right now from the moment he died over 2,000 years ago to this very moment. And he will be with Christ, FOR FOREVER.

The words "Holy Trinity" are also not contained in the Bible but yet that has been a mainstream belief among Christians for a REALLY long time now. That doesn't necessarily mean that the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong. There is plenty of evidence supporting the Holy Trinity. Just like there is plenty of evidence supporting Sola Fide.

We ARE saved by our faith alone but the faith that saves, is never alone. It will ALWAYS have works and obedience. When we were saved we dedicated our lives to Christ and God's will for our lives not our own.

Second Sola Scriptura. The main argument that Luther had against the Catholic church was that how can we claim to follow God yet, not follow God's word but the words of a Pope who can be corrupted? The word of God on the other hand, cannot be corrupted because every person who has written scripture was carried along by the Holy Spirit and it is in fact, inerrant. Both Paul and Peter said it in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 & 2 Peter 1:21. So why is it that we should obey the doctrine of man and the "changing times" when scripture should be the #1 source of our theology. It's true, each Christian denomination has a separate interpretation of scripture but the fact of the matter is, that ALL Christians should go to the word of God FIRST and ONLY before they obey the doctrines of men. Even Paul (and Christ) warned us not to be conformed to this world (Romans 12:2 & John 17:16). The world has been evil from the beginning and many evil and Godless things are being "allowed" into this world ever since the beginning of time. So why take your theology from the world when the word of God cannot become corrupted?

Oh I realize that there are now Bibles that have been corrupted to say that homosexual marriage is "okay" and abortion is "okay" and divorce ...etc is "okay" but when you translate/look at the Bible as a whole and use 99.9% of the English translations of the Bible they ALL state that they are in fact, not okay.

 

[Christ is Lord]

So tell me, if we have the Holy Spirit for forever, and we are sealed by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation for forever, just how is it that we can lose our salvation again?

You can't "lose" your salvation in a sense. As Dr. Heiser puts it: "That which wasn't attained by moral perfection cannot be lost by moral imperfection".

 

[Christ is Lord]

Is the so called "majority" of the church claiming that the Holy Spirit will be living inside of us when we go to Hades, or the Lake of Fire?

I haven't heard of this view. Can you point me to some references?

 

[Albion]

I'm not taking sides on the issue by saying the following, but Heiser's comment doesn't make sense.

If I give you a gift but you turn out to be an ingrate, OF COURSE I might decide to take it back.

 

[Christ is Lord]

I'm not taking sides on the issue by saying the following, but Heiser's comment doesn't make sense.

If I give you a gift but you turn out to be an ingrate, OF COURSE I might decide to take it back.

Fair enough. However, isn't salvation offered to everyone? How does one lose their salvation and how does one gain salvation?

 

[Skittles]

The first pope was Peter not Clement (Clement was the 4th Pope after Peter, Linus and Cletus). But if Clement lives in the late 1st Century (he served as Pope from 88-97) how can he observe Sola Scriptura when the texts that would make up the full New Testament were only just completed and wouldn’t be canonized for another 300 years?

 

[Albion]

Fair enough. However, isn't salvation given to everyone (it's a free gift). How does one lose their salvation and how does one gain salvation?

Well, I said that I wasn't taking sides (on the free-will vs. election argument or on OSAS) by saying what I did about Dr. Heiser's statement, and I think I should stick to that.

 

[Albion]

The first pope was Peter not Clement (Clement was the 4th Pope after Peter, Linus and Cletus).

The first pope was probably Leo the Great who came along several centuries later, but none of that affects the the OP's proposition anyway.

But if Clement lives in the late 1st Century (he served as Pope from 88-97) how can he observe Sola Scriptura when the texts that would make up the full New Testament were only just completed and wouldn’t be canonized for another 300 years?

There is plenty of evidence of the Early Church Fathers from the first and second centuries citing Scripture and only Scripture as the basis for believing what they said that they did.

 

[Neostarwcc]

I haven't heard of this view. Can you point me to some references?

As far as I know, it isn't a view. Although, it might be a view somewhere. I was asking people if that was a belief. Because otherwise, how is it that the Holy Spirit will never leave us if we can lose our salvation by a lack of faith?

Think about it, if we lose our salvation we go to hell and ultimately the lake of fire right? Well, if we were sealed and if the HS is with a believer for forever than that must mean in order for it to be true that we can lose our salvation that the HS would have to go to hell with us. Which of course, sounds preposterous. That is not what Jesus and Paul meant when they gave believers security and promised them Eternal life. I mean, it was thought by the early church that we CAN lose the Holy Spirit when we lose our salvation. But yet why did Christ say that the Holy Spirit would reside in us for forever and never leave us and why did Paul say we were sealed at the moment of salvation? It just doesn't add up.

 

[Neostarwcc]

The first pope was Peter not Clement (Clement was the 4th Pope after Peter, Linus and Cletus). But if Clement lives in the late 1st Century (he served as Pope from 88-97) how can he observe Sola Scriptura when the texts that would make up the full New Testament were only just completed and wouldn’t be canonized for another 300 years?

Let's say for the sake of argument that the first pope was in fact Peter, my statement of even the first pope believed in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura was still factually correct. Because, Peter did teach those things.

As did Celement I here's a quote from him:

"
“And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
"Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words... Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for God hates those that commend themselves. Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers."
"The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: Behold, the Lord [comes], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work. He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him."

 

[Christ is Lord]

Let's say for the sake of argument that the first pope was in fact Peter, my statement of even the first pope believed in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura was still factually correct. Because, Peter did teach those things.

If for argument sake you Peter was the first Pope then one can make the case that Sola Scriptura isn't correct because the Bible as we have it today wasn't fully canonized. To go even further the entire NT wasn't even written and or canonized as yet.

 

[Albion]

As far as I know, it isn't a view. Although, it might be a view somewhere. I was asking people if that was a belief. Because otherwise, how is it that the Holy Spirit will never leave us if we can lose our salvation by a lack of faith?

I think it was this wording which prompted that reply:

Is the so called "majority" of the church claiming that the Holy Spirit will be living inside of us when we go to Hades, or the Lake of Fire? Because if they are, that sounds preposterous!

 

[Neostarwcc]

If for argument sake you Peter was the first Pope then one can make the case that Sola Scriptura isn't correct because the Bible as we have it today wasn't fully canonized. To go even further the entire NT wasn't even written and or canonized as yet.

No, but both Peter and Paul said that all scripture was God breathed. This included what existed and was being written of the New Testament at the time. Did Paul and Peter think that their letters would be added to scripture? Probably not. But, they still DID believe that they were being carried along by the Holy Spirit and did in fact, write things that were inerrant. They also did believe that the gospels that Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark wrote at the time would be added to scripture as well. So this means that all of John's writings were probably assumed by the Apostles to be added to scripture in the future.

 

[Neostarwcc]

I think it was this wording which prompted that reply:

Oh! Oops! You're right, I didn't mean that at all! I'll edit it!

 

[Albion]

If for argument sake you Peter was the first Pope then one can make the case that Sola Scriptura isn't correct because the Bible as we have it today wasn't fully canonized. To go even further the entire NT wasn't even written and or canonized as yet.

It wasn't yet "canonized," but all of it (with the possible exception of the Book of Revelation) was already being used in the churches and recognized as inspired, however.

 

[Christ is Lord]

No, but both Peter and Paul said that all scripture was God breathed.

Fair enough. However, when they spoke of scripture they were referring to the Septuagint. Note I am a believer in Sola Scriptura, I just think that line of thinking of why it makes sense has some holes.

 

[Christ is Lord]

was already being used in the churches and recognized as inspired, however.

I’m glad you brought this up because during the canonization process certain books that aren’t in Protestant Bible some people in the church felt they were inspired. So at the end of the day it really comes down to what you take as inspired and what you don’t take as inspired.

 

[Albion]

I’m glad you brought this up because during the canonization process certain books that aren’t in Protestant Bible some people in the church felt they were inspired. So at the end of the day it really comes down to what you take as inspired and what you don’t take as inspired.

Sort of. But you know that the Apocryphal books were included only provisionally, and that the Roman Catholic Church removed some of them during the 16th century (although most Catholics are under the impression that it was Luther who alone did such a thing and that there never was any controversy over the inclusion of these books).

 

[Skittles]

Help me out - what specifically in St Clements quote supports Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide?

Let's say for the sake of argument that the first pope was in fact Peter, my statement of even the first pope believed in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura was still factually correct. Because, Peter did teach those things.

As did Celement I here's a quote from him:

"
“And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
"Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words... Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for God hates those that commend themselves. Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers."
"The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: Behold, the Lord [comes], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work. He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him."

me out

 

[Christ is Lord]

But, they still DID believe that they were being carried along by the Holy Spirit and did in fact, write things that were inerrant

I wholeheartedly agree with you here.

They also did believe that the gospels that Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark wrote at the time would be added to scripture as well.

How are you do know this?