the 5 solas

[lmnop9876]

the 5 solas are (mind my bad latin, lol):
sola Scriptura: Scripture alone
sola gratia: Grace alone
sola fide: Faith alone
solo Christo: Christ alone
soli Deo Gloria: God's Glory alone

my understanding of these is:
Scripture alone: Scripture is the final rule for all matters of worship, doctrine and practice. If it's forbidden in the Bible, we don't do it. If it's commanded in the Bible, we do it. however, if what the Bible says on an issue isn't immediately clear after comparison with other parts of the Bible, we need to look at it in the linguistic, cultural, social, and religious context within which it was written, and see what the early church (i.e. those closest to the Apostles) thought on it. We can also use other tools to try and understand better the message of Scripture. everyone interprets the Scripture in light of one tradition or another, whether they realise it or not.

Grace alone: We are saved by the grace of God alone, there is nothing we can do to contribute to our own salvation.

Faith alone: Our works don't contribute to our salvation. It is by faith (which is itself a gift of God) taking hold of Christ that we are saved. however, a true faith is always a lively faith, that shows itself as a true faith in forsaking our own ways, obedience to God's commandments, and doing good works. while these works don't contribute to our salvation, God is pleased with good works done by those who are regenerated, and rewards them.

Christ alone: We are saved by the work of Christ alone, not by our own merits or the merits of any other mere human.

God's Glory Alone: All of life is to be lived to the glory of God, and God's whole scheme of salvation brings glory to Himself alone.

 

[Jon_]

Scripture alone: Scripture is the final rule for all matters of worship, doctrine and practice. If it's forbidden in the Bible, we don't do it. If it's commanded in the Bible, we do it. however, if what the Bible says on an issue isn't immediately clear after comparison with other parts of the Bible, we need to look at it in the linguistic, cultural, social, and religious context within which it was written, and see what the early church (i.e. those closest to the Apostles) thought on it. We can also use other tools to try and understand better the message of Scripture. everyone interprets the Scripture in light of one tradition or another, whether they realise it or not.

(1:9) The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (Acts 15:15, 2 Pt. 1:20, 21).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[lmnop9876]

(1:9) The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (Acts 15:15, 2 Pt. 1:20, 21).

didn't you read my post?

however, if what the Bible says on an issue isn't immediately clear after comparison with other parts of the Bible,

 

[Jon_]

didn't you read my post?

I don't think you really understand what the Confession is saying or what the Bible teaches.

You said:

However, if what the Bible says on an issue isn't immediately clear after comparison with other parts of the Bible, we need to look at it in the linguistic, cultural, social, and religious context within which it was written, and see what the early church (i.e. those closest to the Apostles) thought on it. We can also use other tools to try and understand better the message of Scripture. everyone interprets the Scripture in light of one tradition or another, whether they realise it or not.
​

None of this is mentioned in the Confession or supported by the Scriptures. It is nothing more than a scholastic assumption on your part. The Confession says that the Scripture is interpreted by Scripture. I realize that you accept this as well, but you go too far when you say that if we cannot interpret the Scripture, we must look at how the early church interpreted it. This will inevitably result in faulty exegesis.

If you cannot determine the interpretation of a passage (and I do not mean the language, I mean the interpretation; that is, the meaning), then you should leave it for the time and pray that it would be revealed to you. The Holy Spirit illuminates the Scriptures according to the will of the Father. He reveals those truths that the Father has preordained for us to know according to his sovereign plan. It is impious for us to force an interpretation on those passages that we cannot understand. Interpreting the Scripture according to the practice and doctrines of men is disobedient and sinful. It is therefore unacceptable to base biblical interpretation upon the practice and teachings of the early church. Scripture is its own infallible interpreter. Intermixing human wisdom with divine wisdom can only result in a distortion of the truth.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Erinwilcox]

It might depend on the issue. It might also depend on whether or not it is an issue of Christian liberty.

 

[lmnop9876]

It might depend on the issue. It might also depend on whether or not it is an issue of Christian liberty.

i think you're right. if the Bible is clear on a matter, then we should definitely follow it, and it's always the Bible we should turn to first. however, if the Bible's not completely clear, even by comparing different passages, we need to look at it from the perspective of those closest to the time it was written, and see what they say on the matter.
i guess what i have a problem with is Protestants who say, it's not ok to have 'romish' things in a church, such as candles, preacher's vestments, &c. &c. then allow musical instruments in their church. it's sort of contradictory, i think.

 

[Jon_]

however, if the Bible's not completely clear, even by comparing different passages, we need to look at it from the perspective of those closest to the time it was written, and see what they say on the matter.

Still yet again, this is nothing more than a completely unsubstantiated assumption that has no basis in the Bible. It is utterly contrary to the fundamental assumption of the Christianity (that the Bible alone is the Word of God and sufficient for all things pertaining to the faith). There is no justification for believing this and it is contrary to the Scriptures. Even worse against your position is that you cannot even present a single example where this method of interpretation should be implemented.

i guess what i have a problem with is Protestants who say, it's not ok to have 'romish' things in a church, such as candles, preacher's vestments, &c. &c. then allow musical instruments in their church. it's sort of contradictory, i think.

(Ps. 150:3 AV) Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
​

God commands that we praise him with musical instruments.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Erinwilcox]

i think you're right. if the Bible is clear on a matter, then we should definitely follow it, and it's always the Bible we should turn to first. however, if the Bible's not completely clear, even by comparing different passages, we need to look at it from the perspective of those closest to the time it was written, and see what they say on the matter.
i guess what i have a problem with is Protestants who say, it's not ok to have 'romish' things in a church, such as candles, preacher's vestments, &c. &c. then allow musical instruments in their church. it's sort of contradictory, i think.

Okay, but does that necessarily hold true? What about movies or video games or even the internet? Where does God mention those things in the Bible? If you take the perspective of those closest to the time written, then I guess you wouldn't watch movies, play video games, or even talk on CF? Why? Because they didn't have electricity then, much less any of these things. So what about electricity? The Bible doesn't mention it at all. Should we all be like the Amish who don't use it? I think that I'd rather stay warm during this frigid Maryland winter. . .

And what about the verses in the Bible that say, "You must wear preacher's vestments and have many candles."? Are there any? They would, of course, have to be in the NT since the OT priests were under the Old Covenant which has passed away.

 

[moretap]

What issues cannot be understood from the Bible? and why are those that can't be understood so nessicary to understand?

There is general revelation as well as specific revelation, and specific revelation isn't limited to scripture alone.

 

[Jon_]

There is general revelation as well as specific revelation, and specific revelation isn't limited to scripture alone.

I think you mean special revelation. Special revelation is Scripture. It is limited to Scripture.

The Bible alone is the Word of God.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[moretap]

I think you mean special revelation. Special revelation is Scripture. It is limited to Scripture.

yeah, oops: "special," but I don't think of it as being limited to Scripture. Doesn't it also include actual history (like Jesus's life and ministry for example), work of the Holy Spirit, or really just anything supernatural that God has done and is doing in the world? What is not supernatural is the natural, or general revelation.

I don't think sola scriptura means that scripture alone is the only special revelation. It means Scripture is the only reliable source for doctrine.

 

[Jon_]

yeah, oops: "special," but I don't think of it as being limited to Scripture. Doesn't it also include actual history (like Jesus's life and ministry for example), work of the Holy Spirit, or really just anything supernatural that God has done and is doing in the world? What is not supernatural is the natural, or general revelation.

It sounds like you are confusing the concepts. Special revelation is the Scripture. That is the definition of it. General revelation is everything else. General revelation compels us to obey God. Special revelation provides us with the necessary knowledge unto salvation.

I don't think sola scriptura means that scripture alone is the only special revelation.

It does. Study the first chapter of the Westminster Confession and the Scriptural references provided.

It means Scripture is the only reliable source for doctrine.

That's one in the same thing. Let me ask you this, has God revealed anything unreliable? If so, then it is not revealed. Your argument is logically contradictory.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[moretap]

Christians that existed before the NT mostly had disciples and teachers giving doctrine. Paul's letters is one of those that became Scripture, but something like Apollo's teaching that watered what Paul planted never became Scripture, but was still used by God to grow the Christians.

I believe after the time of Revelation's writing that no more Scripture can be added or taken away, but there is still a lot of watering going on.

Let me ask you this, has God revealed anything unreliable? If so, then it is not revealed. Your argument is logically contradictory

God has never revealed anything unreliable, but I think what other man (the Pope or LDS for example) could claim is God's revelation is unreliable. That doesn't mean eveything the Holy Spirit reveals to man is not real, just that there are many false prophets and it is good to be careful and test with Scripture any revelation.

 

[moretap]

It sounds like you are confusing the concepts. Special revelation is the Scripture. That is the definition of it. General revelation is everything else. General revelation compels us to obey God. Special revelation provides us with the necessary knowledge unto salvation.

That's not the definition of those terms as I have commonly used them or heard them used.

Special revelation is a theological term which refers to the knowledge of God and spiritual matters which can be discovered through supernatural means, such as scripture, miracles, or incarnation. Theologians use this term to describe knowledge of God or spiritual matters that would not be available to mankind without God's intervention to make that knowledge available.
Special revelation is contrasted with general revelation, which refers to the knowledge of God and spiritual matters which can be discovered through natural means, such as observation of nature, philosophy and reasoning, or conscience.
Taken together, general revelation and special revelation form the complete body of knowledge that is available to mankind about God and spritual matters.

 

[Jon_]

Christians that existed before the NT mostly had disciples and teachers giving doctrine.

Uh, there were no Christians before the NT. What do you mean by that?

Paul's letters is one of those that became Scripture, but something like Apollo's teaching that watered what Paul planted never became Scripture, but was still used by God to grow the Christians.

And what did Apollo teach? The Gospel. What is the Gospel? It is the special revelation contained in the Scripture concerning the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Nothing else is Gospel but that.

I believe after the time of Revelation's writing that no more Scripture can be added or taken away, but there is still a lot of watering going on.

I'm not sure how this applies to the discussion...

God has never revealed anything unreliable, but I think what other man (the Pope or LDS for example) could claim is God's revelation is unreliable.

And why do we say their "revelation" is unreliable? Because it is inconsistent with Scripture.

That doesn't mean eveything the Holy Spirit reveals to man is not real . . .

I'm not sure what is meant by this.

. . . just that there are many false prophets and it is good to be careful and test with Scripture any revelation.

Precisely correct. Because Scripture is the sole source of special revelation from God.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

That's not the definition of those terms as I have commonly used them or heard them used.

Oh, boy. If Wikipedia is your source for theological information, then it comes as no surprise that you are confused. I would recommend you read Calvin's Institutes, the first two volumes of The Complete Works of B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[CCWoody]

I would deny Wikipedia as a source, too.

 

[moretap]

Uh, there were no Christians before the NT. What do you mean by that?

Before the New Testament was completed there were Christians, and they didn't have all of Scripture yet. This is also what I meant by the Revelations comment. That Scripture didn't become solidified until then. Before it became solidified there were other ways God gave special revelation to the Christians of that time. Prophets, Messengers, Teachers, Missionaries, etc.

I know Wikipedia is not reliable, but that is a similar definition to other sources I've read. I just quickly got that one because the wording was clear.

 

[lmnop9876]

Still yet again, this is nothing more than a completely unsubstantiated assumption that has no basis in the Bible. It is utterly contrary to the fundamental assumption of the Christianity (that the Bible alone is the Word of God and sufficient for all things pertaining to the faith). There is no justification for believing this and it is contrary to the Scriptures. Even worse against your position is that you cannot even present a single example where this method of interpretation should be implemented.

well, take for example a practice such as praying to saints. people have attempted, using Scripture alone, to justify the practice, and say certain verses show support for it. however, looking at the writings and other things from the 2nd century church, we can see that they didn't practice it, and therefore the church immediately after the Apostles didn't interpret these verses to mean that. so we see that prayers to saints are a post-Apostolic addition to Church tradition. the same goes for prayers for the dead.

Okay, but does that necessarily hold true? What about movies or video games or even the internet? Where does God mention those things in the Bible? If you take the perspective of those closest to the time written, then I guess you wouldn't watch movies, play video games, or even talk on CF? Why? Because they didn't have electricity then, much less any of these things. So what about electricity? The Bible doesn't mention it at all. Should we all be like the Amish who don't use it? I think that I'd rather stay warm during this frigid Maryland winter. . .

And what about the verses in the Bible that say, "You must wear preacher's vestments and have many candles."? Are there any? They would, of course, have to be in the NT since the OT priests were under the Old Covenant which has passed away.

these (internet, movies, &c.) are matters of our personal life, not matters of church doctrine, worship, or practice.
ok, i'll drop the musical instrument thing.

 

[Jon_]

Before the New Testament was completed there were Christians, and they didn't have all of Scripture yet. This is also what I meant by the Revelations comment. That Scripture didn't become solidified until then. Before it became solidified there were other ways God gave special revelation to the Christians of that time. Prophets, Messengers, Teachers, Missionaries, etc.

Ah, okay. I understand. This is right to an extent, of course. We know from the Scriptures that the gift of prophecy was given to the apostolic church so that it would receive the will of God while the canon was being completed. But with the canon now complete, the gift of prophecy is no longer applicable. Most importantly is the fact that the prophecy always reflected the word of God. The Spirit does not contradict himself. The prophecy given to the apostolic church perfectly reflected the Scripture, so it is kind of redundant to argue that prophecy is "also special revelation." They are one in the same.

I know Wikipedia is not reliable, but that is a similar definition to other sources I've read. I just quickly got that one because the wording was clear.

Hmm, okay. I've just never seen special revelation defined that way in Reformed theological circles. It is possible that liberal theologians have expanded the breadth of the term.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon