The Five Solas

[Searching_for_Christ]

Spurred on by a discussion I read in the Orthodox section of this forum, someone brought up an interesting point.

Do the five solas create unneeded dichotomy? For instance Sola Fide? focusing on faith, and splitting it away from works as if they are suppose to be seperate? (blank) as apposed to (blank) What are your thoughts?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Subscribing.....Had to go to wiki to find out what exactly that meant

LLOJ: Still SOLO SCRIPTURA

Five solas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Five solas are five Latin phrases that emerged during the Protestant Reformation and summarize the Reformers' basic theological beliefs in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day. The Latin word sola means "alone" or "only" in English. The five solas articulated five fundamental beliefs of the Protestant Reformation, pillars which the Reformers believed to be essentials of the Christian life and practice. All five implicitly rejected or countered the teachings of the then-dominant Catholic Church, which had in the reformers' mind usurped divine attributes or qualities for the Church and its hierarchy, especially its head, the pope.

 

[MrPolo]

I think the term "5 solas" is already ironic by itself.

 

[Sphinx777]

Five Solas







​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Five Solas

Tis "CLOSED"

 

[ivebeenshown]

I think the term "5 solas" is already ironic by itself.

Agreed.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Spurred on by a discussion I read in the Orthodox section of this forum, someone brought up an interesting point.

Do the five solas create unneeded dichotomy? For instance Sola Fide? focusing on faith, and splitting it away from works as if they are suppose to be seperate? (blank) as apposed to (blank) What are your thoughts?

Not when properly defined and understood I don't think. Sola Fide isn't faith to the exclusion of works, but rather about a specific understanding of the relationship of faith and works in theology.

Sola Scriptura is not the rejection or dismissal of Tradition; it's a specific statement about the relationship of Scripture and Tradition and their roles and purposes. Sola Scriptura never says that Tradition is useless or bad or any of that, it just (pragmatically speaking) says that if/when Scripture and Tradition conflict, Scripture wins. One can subscribe to a methodology of Sola Scriptura and still confess the Creeds, recognize the importance and vitality of Tradition, etc. We would be foolish to ignore the vast wealth of teaching found in the historical teachings of the Fathers, Councils and Creeds and attempt to "wing it" with a Bible in one hand and our arrogance in the other.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BrendanMark]

Understood in depth, they are fine: understood superficially, they have been the cause of much strife among Christians.

To transpose Scripture, one element in the canonical tradition of the Church, which was to be used with other canonical materials and practices, into the single norm of theological truth, which was to be used on its own as the foundation for argument, was to reconceive the whole scope and character of the complex canonical heritage of the Church.
Abraham, William J. – Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology [Oxford 1998 p. 142]


Any deep account of the canonical revolution which took place at the Reformation must acknowledge that one important factor in its origins and development was to find the God of the canonical traditions. The canonical heritage was de facto in such disrepair that the Reformers entered into a revolt against the prevailing heritage of the West in order to recover a living faith in God and to renovate the tradition along different lines from those which they had inherited. Yet they received not just the material proposals about canon which had developed in the West, they also came to possess the concept of canon which had become normative in the West. Hence the changes they proposed perpetuated the departure from the tacit conception at work in the patristic period.
Abraham, William J. – Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology [Oxford 1998 p. 144]

 

[BrendanMark]

There is nothing wrong with developing epistemic theory. Indeed, in its proper place it is a very valuable and indispensable asset. In the long run and at certain levels of inquiry, it is inescapable in the life of the mind. However, ecclesial commitment, like Christian commitment generally, has its own appropriate mode. It is one thing, for example, to be committed to the Trinity and to the incarnation of God in Christ; it is another to be committed to Scripture, tradition, and reason. Christians rightly pray that, should the time of testing come, they will be prepared to die for the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is ludicrous from a spiritual point of view to even think of dying for the Anglican triad.


Yet the fact that we can conceive of such a possibility is the deep consequence of the canonical shift represented by the move to epistemize the canonical heritage of the Church. Much as we can admire those who were martyred at the hands of their epistemic enemies, it is surely a sign of the intellectual corruption of the Church that the possibility of death and martyrdom for rival types of epistemic schemes was even considered in the volatile events that constituted the various phases of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in England in the sixteenth century. Except perhaps in cases long debated and contested within the canonical heritage of the Church, Christians have no business killing their enemies. Nor have they any business qua Christians dying for their epistemic theories. Yet there is a place, surely, for dying for the canonical faith of the Church. Pondering this distinction will help confirm that it was a sorry day when theologians turned the canonical faith of the early Church into a half-baked exercise in religious epistemology.
Abraham, William J. – Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology [Oxford 1998 p. 213]

 

[hedrick]

I agree with most of what has been said. The implication is that the Wikipedia definition may be misleading. The solas were slogans. They emphasized the things that were distinctive to Protestant thought. That's not necessarily the five most important things in Christianity. In particular, the Reformers always made justification part of a larger scheme of salvation, parts of which are not mentioned in the 5 solas.

While the Wikipedia article quoted is a reasonable attempt, I'm particularly not happy about the article on sola scriptura. It defines sola scriptura as the idea that Scripture contains all knowledge necessary for salvation. While I agree with that, and think it's included, sola scriptura is primarily about doctrinal authority.

It's also necessary to realize that the magisterial reformers also accepted an important role for tradition. Interpretation of Scripture was never an individual activity. Individuals could propose, but the community made judgements for the Church, which are expressed in confessions. This is a role similar in many ways to tradition in the Catholic Church, with two exceptions (1) some Catholics (though certainly not all) considered that tradition could actually be the source of new revelation; the Protestant version of tradition doesn't have that; (2) Catholics maintain that tradition, properly qualified, is inerrant; Protestants believe that it can err and has erred; hence current beliefs are always open to being challenged.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*

I agree with most of what has been said. The implication is that the Wikipedia definition may be misleading. The solas were slogans.
They emphasized the things that were distinctive to Protestant thought. Protestants believe that it can err and has erred; hence current beliefs are always open to being challenged.

 

[MrPolo]

some Catholics (though certainly not all) considered that tradition could actually be the source of new revelation

The Church has never taught that there is new revelation beyond the death of the last apostle. So it may be worth clarifying here that these "some Catholics" you mention are not passing on anything from the Magisterium (unless you would like to provide citations).

 

[Eucharisted]

Simple refutation of the Five Solas

1. Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone): The belief that Scripture is the only inspired and authoritive Word of God, the only source of Christian doctrine, and that it is self-interpreting and accessible to personal interpretation.

Objection: Sola Scriptura is incorrect because the Apostles had no Bible with which to preach; all they had was the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:1-2, 7-12). If Sola Scriptura is correct, than the Apostles are frauds.

2. Solda Fide (Faith Alone): The belief that man is justified by faith alone and saving faith is evidenced by good works.

Objection: Sola Fide is incorrect because Jesus taught that not everyone who believes He is God will make it to Heaven but only those who do His Father's Will (Luke 7:21-23, 8:19-21). If Sola Fide is correct, than Jesus is a false teacher.

3. Solda Gratia (Grace Alone): The belief that eternal life is a grace and that man cannot "merit" greater graces by cooperating with graces.

Objection: Sola Gratia is incorrect because Mary "merited" her role as Mother of God by cooperating with God: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38, Acts 4:33). If Sola Gratia is correct, than Mary is not the Mother of God.

4. Solo Christo (Christ Alone): The belief that Christ is the sole Mediator, that no one else can act as a mediator, and that salvation comes through Christ.

Objection: Solo Christo is incorrect because people can pray for others, and prayer is a form of meditation (1 Timothy 2:1-2, Hebrews 7:25). If Solo Christo is correct, than no one can pray for others.

5. Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God Alone): The belief that God alone is glorified and no saint can be venerated.

Objection: Soli Deo Gloria is incorrect because the Apostle John spoke of martyrs being venerated by being buried under Altars (Revelation 6:9-11, 1 Jn 5:21). If Soli Deo Gloria is correct, than John is an idolter.
Reply With Quote

Sola Scriptura runs on the fallacy of circular logic

Circular logic is a fallacy that goes like this:
1. Claim A is made
2. Evidence for claim A is asked for
3. Claim A is said evidence

Since most sola scriptura Christians believe the Bible along is sufficient, they use circular logic to justify sola scriptura. Like this:
1. The Bible is God's word
2. Why?
3. Because it says so

The Bible is God's Word but the Bible does not suffice as the authority to say it is. Some sola scriptura Christians say Jesus is the sufficient authority, yet, this is not convincing if they say the Bible only testifies to Him: It's, once again, circular logic.
1. The Bible is God's Word
2. Why?
3. Jesus says so
4. Why?
5. The Bible says so

Or, replace 5 with "The Bible says He is God" or "Jesus says He is God", it's all the same fallacy.

What is needed in order to upload the Bible - for want of a better phrase - is something older than the Bible that comes from Christ, for, as Christians we hold Christ as our Lord and Savior, so we believe Him and follow His teachings. In addition, that something must be identical to what the Bible records about Christ and what the Apostles teach in the Bible, for, the Bible is the inerrant Scriptures and God would not teach something later which He did not teach earlier (in order words, the Bible must be identical to that from which it had come, otherwise we may suspect of error).

That something which the Bible comes from and which comes from Christ is called Tradition. It is the oral tradition of the Gospel, the passing down of the life and teachings of Christ by word of mouth, which God preserves from error and which He gives a deeper understanding to throughout the years. Without this Tradition, we could not claim, no matter how old the Bible is or how early to Jesus' death it was written, that the Bible is true, because, as I said, it would be circular logic to claim the Bible is true based on the Bible.

Tradition is based on the Jewish understanding of the Word of God. In Judaism, the Word is the Torah and the Oral Torah from which the Torah came: I.e., Scripture and Tradition. The Word of God is not, as most Christians believe, simply the Bible. That, in fact, would be scientifically impossible: Because, as archeology shows, oral tradition proceeded written writing in human history.

But, how do we know that Tradition is true? Wouldn't it be circular logic to say Tradition is true based on Tradition? Yet Tradition comes from Jesus, it is the life He led and the words He spoke which His eyewitnesses - the Twelve - witnessed to by their lives and teachings, so, Tradition is based on Christ. Yet how do we know Christ is God? And how do we know He existed? We have relics of Him, so there is historical evidence of His existence, and we have Roman accounts of His miracles, so there is historical evidence of His work, and we have His words, for He said, if one does not believe in His words to at least believe in His works, for they are the works of God. And from there we get into questions of God's existence, essence, and nature.

But to get back on topic: Sola scriptura is based on circular logic. Ironically, some sola scriptura Christans hold to their own versions of Tradition, saying that the Tradition of the Church is false. Again ironically, they based their own traditions on Tradition, just as the based their own idea of "church" on the Church. This would all be false if the Church had no proceeded the many churches which came from the Reformation, and these same churches came up with their own ideas on the Word of God and Christianity, yet, again as archeology shows, the Church did proceed the Reformation, and in fact, the Reformers were Catholics - Catholics who committed the sin of schism, that is.

While we all believe in Christ and follow His teachings, we do not all follow Him correctly. Only those with the fullness of the truth follow Him correctly, because, having the full knowledge of Jesus, they know Him fully, and so, fully adhere to Him, whereas everyone else simply adheres to Him according to what truths they possess, such as the truth of the Word being Scripture and Tradition. Now not everyone lives a Christian life, yet sin does not subvert objective truths - any more than a criminal subverts justice.

 

[MrPolo]

Did the Reformers drink Sola Cola?

 

[MKJ]

Simple refutation of the Five Solas



Sola Scriptura runs on the fallacy of circular logic

Yeah - simple may be the operative word here. I am not a proponent of the solas, but this seems rather a straw man to me.