Why We Need the 'Solas'

Banner of Truth ^ | John M. Brentnall

[Alex Murphy]

Martin Luther is not merely a key figure in the unfolding of events in the Protestant Reformation; he also played a major role in moulding its ideas. 'Perhaps more than any other person, Luther shaped the presuppositions that define Protestantism.' (Stephen J. Nichols) These presuppositions are known to scholars in their Latin form as the five Reformation 'solas': 'sola Scriptura' = 'Scripture alone'; 'sola fide' = 'faith alone'; 'sola gratia' = 'grace alone'; 'solus Christus' = 'Christ alone'; and 'soli Deo gloria' = 'to the glory of God alone.' That they each find their place at the root of Luther's thinking is sufficient testimony to the seminal role he played in their fuller development by later Protestant theologians. In this short study we will consider why Luther thought we need these 'solas.'

Scripture Alone

We begin where Luther begins, with 'sola Scriptura,' the formal principle of all Reformed teaching. We need 'sola Scriptura' because in this dark world of spiritual blindness, 'the only reason we can see at all is that the light of God's Word shines brightly (2 Pet. 1.19).' Without that light 'we would not know or understand anything.' (Works, 6.148) Luther hammered this truth as firmly into his hearers' minds as he hammered the Ninety-five Theses onto Wittenberg Castle Church door. At every opportunity, he calls us away from the spurious claims of Rome, reason, mysticism and the sects, back to the written Word of God. 'We must learn to depend on the visible Word of our invisible and incredible God' (5.183), for 'faith . . . does not judge . . . by what it sees or feels but by what it hears. It depends on the Word alone.' (Sermons, 1905.1.23)

Indeed, the only reason we know that God is present with us is 'through his Word.' To trust in it is to trust in him. So, he resolves: 'God's Word alone will be my rod and staff.' (12.169) 'I will live by what it says.' (22.6)

Luther's heroic stand at Worms can be explained in no other way. In danger of his life from the Roman Catholic emperor Charles V as he recalled John Hus at the Council of Constance; opposed by the papal nuncio Aleander, ready to thunder Rome's anathemas against him; barely supported by Germany's petty princes, hesitant and uncertain of the outcome; Luther refused to be intimidated. When called on to recant, even when no heresy had been proved against him, he replied: 'I am bound to the Scriptures . . . my conscience is captive to the Word of God.' The Bible alone was his sheet anchor during this Satanic storm, as it was throughout his entire life. Thus Luther teaches us that we need the Bible alone because all other testimony is liable to err, and it alone is inerrant.

Faith Alone

Luther hammers home our absolute need of faith as vigorously as he does our total dependence on Scripture. Let us not imagine, however, that with him 'sola fide' was nothing more than belief in God and assent to the articles of the Christian creed. No, it is especially the personal appropriation of Christ and God's gracious promises in him, as given to us in Scripture.

1. Appropriating Christ

Forceful convictions mingle with child-like tenderness in Luther's teaching on appropriating Christ. 'Of what benefit would it be to me,' he cries, 'if Christ had been born a thousand times . . . if I were never to hear that he was born for me?' (Sermons, 1905. I. 149) By contrast he gently affirms: 'My sweet Redeemer is sufficient for me. I shall praise him all my life.' (Letters, 1908. XXIV)

But whether forceful or gentle, Luther is always pointing us - both preachers and hearers - to Christ alone. In preaching, 'Christ should be placed directly before our eyes so that we see and hear nothing apart from him.' In hearing, 'faith is an unswerving gaze that looks on Christ alone.' (26.356)

What could the snake-bitten Jews do to heal themselves? he asks vehemently. Nothing! Moses commanded them to look at 'the bronze snake, which points to Christ (John 3.14) . . . with an unswerving gaze. Those who did so were healed.' Those who did not, but 'looked at their wounds instead . . . died.' So too, we must not pore over our own sins, but 'do nothing but look to him.' In him we see our sins dealt with by his death, and our victory over sin, death and the devil secured by his resurrection. 'This is true faith in Christ and the right way to believe.' (26.356)

2. Appropriating God's Promises

Since 'all God's promises are based on Christ,' to appropriate them is to appropriate him. There is no basic difference between Abraham's faith and ours. The only difference is that 'Abraham believed in the promised Christ who was still to come. We believe in the Christ who has already come. We are all saved' through 'this same faith.' (3.26)

'The Holy Spirit' holds God's promises 'before us so that' we 'may find refuge and comfort' in them when we sense God's anger against us, or when we are assailed by 'serious doubts . . . such as: "What if God does not want me to be saved?" . . . When our consciences are troubled in this way we must continue to believe the promise of salvation - a promise we can trust in and depend on ... We must hang onto God's promise, because if Satan can prevent us believing it, then we have nowhere else to turn. We must hold tightly to the promise and be ready for the times when God will test us.' (4.93) From Joel 2.15, he adds: 'It is wonderful to see the way the Holy Spirit works. He highlights the threat in order to show us the goodness and mercy of God.'

When God-fearing people hear the Word, they apply these promises to themselves in the right way. 'Disheartened and crushed by God's anger and threat of punishment,' knowing 'they deserve divine judgment,' and recognizing 'the seriousness of sin and its condemnation . . . when they hear these promises they turn to God's mercy,' and he calms their consciences. This is the way God works in his people. After terrifying them 'with threats, he comforts them with his promises.' (18.97) And it is the faith he has given them that appropriates these promises for their deliverance.

This kind of faith, and no other, Luther claims, is sufficient for our salvation. Therefore 'we should conclude with Paul [in Galatians 2.16] that we are justified by faith alone . . . faith that takes hold of Christ the Saviour and keeps him in our hearts.' (26.136)

As if to strike one last hammer blow on behalf of faith alone, Luther concludes that without it we cannot understand the Lord's dealings with us at all. But faith 'will comfort me' even 'when I leave this earth . . . My body will be buried in the ground and eaten by worms . .. When I look at death I do not see God's plan for me. Yet God has promised that I will come back to life. Christ said: "Because I live, you will live also" (John 14.19). But how will I live? I will live in eternal life, in a body that is brighter and more beautiful than the sun. I cannot see or feel any of this yet. But I believe it, and I can tolerate the short delay.' (6.401)

We need 'sola fide,' then, because faith is the only thing that lays hold of Christ in the promises of the Word for our salvation.

Grace Alone

Luther has as much to say in defence of 'grace alone' as he has about 'faith alone.' Indeed, he sees it operating in every part of the believer's life. As with other 16th century Reformers, he divides scriptural teaching on it into two parts. The first is God's objective grace, or free, unmerited mercy towards us. The second is his subjective grace infused and working in us.

1. Objective Grace

Objective grace opens the door to our justification. 'People are not justified and do not receive life and salvation because of anything they have done. Rather . . . because of God's grace through Christ. There is no other way.' Those who are tired of hearing this great truth because they learned it when young barely understand how important it is. 'If it continues to be taught as truth, the Christian church will remain united and pure,' for it 'alone makes and sustains Christianity.' It is so essential that 'we will always remain its students, and it will always be our teacher.' Those who really understand it 'hunger and thirst for it. They yearn for it more and more. They never get tired of hearing about it.' (14.36)

Grace is so necessary to our justification that 'wanting to be justified by our own works through the Law is ... throwing away God's grace . . . This is a serious error.' From Galatians 2.21, he infers that to reject salvation by grace alone also makes 'Christ's death . . . pointless, which is the highest blasphemy against God.' (27.240) It is only 'because of God's mercy and grace' that sinners are accepted by him and receive from him a righteousness not their own. (12.328)

This constitutes the glory of the gospel. 'It does not tell us to do good works to become virtuous, but announces God's grace to us, freely given and without our merit.' (30.3)

2. Subjective Grace

Grace becomes subjective when it is infused into sinners' hearts by God's Holy Spirit in their new birth. This is the grace that actually unites them to Christ and makes them new creatures. 'We cannot feel the new birth . . . we cannot see it . . . we cannot . . . understand it.' Yet it is real, and 'we must . . . believe it. What is born of the Spirit is spiritual.' Because it is so, its primary benefit is eternal life. (22.290) Just as after Adam sinned he could do nothing to restore to himself the life he had forfeited, so we too can do nothing towards our restoration to God. (30.263) God himself must restore us. This makes subjective grace absolutely necessary.

Once God's grace has been infused into us, Luther continues, it does marvellous things. For a start, it enables us progressively to keep God's Law, which we could never do before. He who 'brought God's grace and truth' to us (John 1.17) really enables us to keep the commandments. Being 'enlightened by the Holy Spirit, renewed by the Word of God, and having faith in Christ,' we who believe now have 'a new spirit that makes God's Word and God's laws a pleasure to obey.' Moreover, as we proceed through life, it is the same grace that enables us to 'find joy in trusting God above everything else.' (22.143)

It is grace alone too that deals with the darker side of the believer's life. When cast down by sin, fear and doubt, he finds grace at hand to uplift him. Even when, like the psalmist in Psalm 42, 'you see only the Law, sin, terror, sadness, despair, death, hell and the devil . . . grace is present when your heart is restored by the promise of God's free mercy . . . Are not grace, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, comfort, joy, peace, life, heaven, Christ and God also present?' Therefore, say to yourself: 'stop being troubled, my soul . . . Trust God.' 'Whoever truly understands this [i.e. by experience] can be called a theologian.' Grace is thus so necessary that we must be 'diligent students' in its school 'as long as we remain in these sinful bodies.' (26.341)

Finally, when this sin-troubled life is over, it is grace alone that gives believers the victory over death. We do not win it. Rather, it is given us 'out of God's grace.' Christ secured it for us, and we share in his victory over it. (28.212)

From foundation stone to topmost stone, then, the house of salvation is built entirely of grace. Luther states why we need both grace and faith in one sentence: 'If grace or faith is not preached, then no one will be saved, for faith alone justifies and saves.' (27.48)

Christ Alone

'Christ alone' is the next 'sola' that Luther dings into our dull ears. How greatly we need it is evident from the knowledge God gives us of our legalistic, self-righteous hearts. From a wealth of available sources, we select a small sample to illustrate his firm conviction of its necessity.

In a letter defending his attack on papal indulgences, he writes: 'I teach that man must trust solely in Christ Jesus.' (Letters, 1908, London. XXI)

While expounding John 3.16, he says: 'God gave his Son to the lost so that they might be saved. Then what should you do? Nothing! Don't go on pilgrimages. Don't do this or that good work. Instead, simply believe in Christ alone.' (22.374)

A leading aspect of the Holy Spirit's testimony within the believer is that'Christians can depend on nothing except Christ, their Lord and God.' (24.119)

From the expression: 'of his fullness have all we received' (Col. 2.10) Luther deduces that we need no-one else but Christ. Whether our faith is strong or weak, we 'have the same Christ' and 'are all made perfect through faith in him . . . Whoever accepts him has everything.' (23.28)

In such varied ways as these, Luther proclaims a thousand times the sole saving efficacy of Christ. Having done on our behalf all that God requires, he alone can be our Saviour. 'There is no other . . . but Christ alone' (24.48) This is reason enough to hold onto the principle of 'solus Christus.'

The Glory of God Alone

By his constant insistence on believing, it may be suspected that Luther places man's salvation above God's glory. But it is not so. Luther teaches that God is glorified more in man's salvation than in his damnation. This is why God himself - by his prophets, his Son and his apostles - repeatedly beseeches them to come to him.

So, concludes Luther: 'Glory belongs to no-one but God alone.' (Sermons, 1905. I.156)

Chief among Luther's thoughts on how to honour God is that we should hold his Name or character in the greatest reverence. When his Name is 'holy in us . . . God becomes everything, and we become nothing.' (42.27) Everything that threatens to usurp this unique honour is anathema to him.

Inevitably, Luther ascribes equal glory to each Person of the Godhead. All the Father's glory belongs to the Son, who is 'one God together with the Father. Likewise the Holy Spirit has the same divine nature and majesty.' (22.6) When by grace we give God his due, we glorify all three Persons of the Godhead.

The same honour must be given to all God's attributes or perfections. Singling out his goodness and mercy for special treatment, Luther is most practical in showing us how to honour God because of them. When, for example, we read that the Lord is good (Psa. 118.1) we should not 'skim over' this truth 'quickly or irreverently,' but should 'remember that these are vibrant, relevant and meaningful words that emphasize the goodness of God.' Pausing to ponder them should lead us to realize his inclination to do us good 'from the bottom of his heart.' He punishes people only because of their 'wickedness and stubborn refusal to change.' His 'daily and continual goodness' should draw from our grateful hearts the praise and thanks he deserves. (14.47)

Luther makes a special point of encouraging us to 'reflect back on the years of our lives.' Even when we are bewildered by what has happened to us, we should be able to see 'God's wonderful power, wisdom and goodness' guiding us. 'Only when we look back do we fully realize how often God was with us when we neither saw his hand nor felt his presence.' But as Peter says: 'He cares for you.' (1 Pet. 5.7) Luther is so insistent on this practice that he says: 'Even were there no books or sermons to tell us about God, simply looking back on our own lives would prove that he tenderly carries us in his arms. When we look back on how God has led and brought us through so much evil, adversity and danger, we can clearly see the ever-present goodness of God.' (42.130)

As for his mercy, it is the balm of every sin-burdened and guilt-ridden heart. When we by faith hide beneath his mercy seat, we find ourselves 'covered with a vaulted ceiling called mercy.' So, resolves Luther, setting us an example: 'My heart and conscience will crawl under it and be safe.' (51.278)

True to character, Luther extracts from the angels' song at the birth of Christ (Luke 2.13-14) two delightful lessons for us. 'First of all, by joyfully singing about the honour of God, they show how full of light and fire they are.' Furthermore, 'they don't take credit for anything. They enthusiastically give glory to God, the One to whom it belongs. If you wonder what a humble, pure, obedient and happy heart in God is like, then think of the angels praising God. This is their priority as they live in God's presence.' Secondly, they show us how much they love us, because 'they celebrate our salvation as if it were their own.' So we should 'regard them as highly as we would our best friends.' 'We might not know what they are made of,' he concludes with childlike simplicity, 'but we know what their highest desire is.' So we should imitate them in praising and honouring him. (52.29)

Conclusion

Even from the few select references we have offered, it may be clearly seen that the five Reformation Solas' - Scripture, faith, grace, Christ and God's glory - are internally united and therefore inseparable. This is because the mind of God as revealed in Scripture is one. When the Holy Spirit combines them in our experience, we too cannot think of one without referring to the rest. This is the aim of all true theology - to think God's thoughts after him, and so be conformed to his mind. May he accomplish this in us, that we might live by them, and be able to teach others also.

[Cronos]

2 Pet 1:21 says 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. -- sticking by your own personal interpretation means that you fall into the trap outlined in 2 Pet 3:16 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

And yet we see this personal interpretation changing every day

There are new directions being found, new interpretations everyday.

Each new bunch of Reformatters reformats the old.

1. You have the first generation namely Lutheran sticking close to orthodoxy with the Lutherans holding to the True Presence in the Eucharist, to Baptismal regeneration etc.
2. Generation 2: Then you have the Calvin-Zwingli crowd rejecting these two as well as other aspects of orthodoxy
3. Generation 3: Knox and the Anglican compromise
4. Generation 4: The Unitarians like Michael Servetus who went from being Catholic to Lutheran to Reformed to denying the Trinity.
5. Generation 5: the Baptists who now rejected infant baptism (quite unlike their namesakes the Anabaptists (now called Mennonites)) and said that there was a great Apostasy in the first centuries of Christendom (Gen 1-3 took later centuries as the dates of their "Great Apostasy")
6. Generation 6: the Restorationists at the Great Awakening, like
   
   • The Millerites, to become the Seventh DayAdventists -- with Ellen G White saying that Jesus was the same as the Archangel Michael and that Satan woudl take the sins of the world at the end of time and other beauties. They came up with their own version of the Bible
   • The Unitarians and Universalists -- reborn and reinvigorated by this reformatting, they tossed out the Trinity and eventually they end up as they are today where they believe in nothing
   • Jehovah's Witnesses: they tossed out the Trinity too and came up with their own version of the Bible
   • The Mormons: they took the Trinity and made it three gods. They too came up with their own version of the Bible
7. Generation 7: the Orthodo Presbyterian C, the FourSquare Ahoy! Pentecostalists, the Raelians, the Branch Davidians, the Creflo-Dollar crowd, the Jesse Dupantis (I went to visit Jesus in heaven and comforted Him) etc -- one step further beyond generation 6
8. Generation 8: ... any one of the thousands of new sects formed since 1990

How can you say that there is entropy -- there's a lot of change happening. Next week the North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism is due to split into the Central-North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism and the Central-Southern-North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism, but this is good driven as there as a dispute in the Congregation on matters of doctrine, Bobama thought that he should be Preach-pasto-Prophet Elder on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and alternate Sundays while Michelle thought that she should be that -- as she had yoga-pilates-kickboxing class on Thursdays.

[Cronos]

remember:

Sola scriptura itself is not in scripture!

• Nowhere in scripture do we see anyone saying that all should be from scripture ALONE. On the contrary we read Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 to hold fast to all traditions -- oral or written
• There is nothing in Scriptura that teaches that Scripture should be held in isolation from the Church and Tradition.
• Sola scriptura also fails that it can't even be derived
• 2 Tim. 3:16–17 says
  

  16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
  17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

  It nowhere says SOLA scriptura. It just says "all scripture" -- not defining scripture, not saying what is outside is wrong, just saying "if it's scripture it be good" In fact it is building words into scripture by claiming that it says sola scriptura so Sola Scriptura contradicts itself!
• Now Sola Scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 3:14 which says
  

  14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

  --> nowhere does it say that this learning was SOLA scriptura, in fact it was mostly ORAL teaching as with the Bereans.
• Also, Sola scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 1:13–14 which says
  

  13Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
  14That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.;

  --> note, words heard.... not scriptura.
• And sola-scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim 2:2 which says
  

  2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ;

  "Has HEARD" what you have heard, commit and teach to others. No sola scriptura here either

[Cronos]

In contrast We in orthodoxy hold that:

1. The Bible is God-breathed
2. The Bible is inerrant i.e. without any error
3. The Bible is the source of doctrines of the Christian faith and the standard of faith
4. There is nothing "missing" as in sources of fundamental belief of God as opposed to authority in discernemtn in scripture
5. No "other source" bare Apostolic Tradition is anywhere near the level of authority and even A.T. though it is the original "pool" is still subservient to scripture.

We differ with you on the

1. sola i.e. only bit, and on
2. the sole "authority (as it is not a rule book)" and the "all" doctrines.

the authority bit is the easiest to explain why sola scriptura is wrong -- because the Bible is not a rule book especially the NT, there are positions that are clear and positions that if one takes in isolation can lead to wrong, conflicting conclusions (double-predestination as the best example), some more being

1. does sola scriptura say one should believe in something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching) note this is fundamental belief
3. Does sola scriptura say that there is the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (Calvinists) another fundamental belief
4. Does sola scriptura say that one MUST talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
5. Is Baptism for the remission of sins (Lutheran or Methodism) or not (say Baptist?)
6. Does sola scriptura say that Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)? Does sola scriptura say that Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
7. Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with soul sleep? (Calvin: "As long as (the soul) is in the body it exerts its own powers; but when it quits this prison-house it returns to God, whose presence, it meanwhile enjoys while it rests in the hope of a blessed Resurrection. This rest is its paradise. On the other hand, the spirit of the reprobate, while it waits for the dreadful judgment, is tortured by that anticipation. . .", Psychopannychia,
8. Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists say it is the sign of the beast)
9. Does sola scriptura agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
10. Does sola scriptura believe that we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
11. Does sola scriptura say that there is no free will (Calvinism) or that man has free will (Mennonites)
12. Does sola scriptura say that it is faith + works (Mennonites: Menno Simons told the followers of Luther and Calvin: “If you wish to be saved, you must walk in the way of the Lord, hear His Word, and obey it. For nothing avails in heaven nor on earth unto salvation, … not even Christ with His grace, merit, blood, and death, if we are not born of God, … if we do not believe His Word sincerely, and if we do not walk in the light and do right. As John says: …>If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie.’” (Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 208)) or not?
13. Does sola scriptura say that there is imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

Note, all of these are basic, fundamental beliefs, not additional beliefs and by referring to various passages in isolation, different practioners of sola scriptura arrive at different conclusions.

Also, do note that each of these groups uses an "authority" other than scripture to prove it's point to the detriment of others - even down to the individual persons who argue with each other on fundamentals -- each uses an "authority" that is not the Bible alone, that is not sola scriptura to justify their point

The second point, we have argued about this before ad nauseum and reached no conclusion but we can agree to disagree. I will only point out that

1. There is nothing "missing" as in sources of fundamental belief of God as opposed to authority in discernemtn in scripture
2. No "other source" bare Apostolic Tradition is anywhere near the level of authority and even A.T. though it is the original "pool" is still subservient to scripture.

[Cronos]

Also, RN, Gamecock -- if you say you hold to sola scriptura, then why do you note believe God's word in John 6?

And, if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The Jews made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who bstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said

[Al Hitan]

Actually it is the RC that added to the scriptures.. Protestants just kept it as it was..

Yes, Catholics did - we call it the New Testament. I didn't realize the Protestants refused this New Testament canon.

[Al Hitan]

Nope.. there was no OFFICIAL canon until Trent..

There were previous councils that listed all the books that had been in use by the Church. This includes the Council of Florence which occurred a hundred years before Trent. Usually, the only time a council makes an "OFFICIAL" proclamation is when a teaching is challenged. Trent had to make the canon an "OFFICIAL" proclamation because of the so called Reformation trying to change the canon accepted by the Church for centuries.

Claiming that there was no unified canon in the Church until Trent's proclamation is simply a distortion of historical fact, at the best.

[Cronos]

rnmomof7 The OT belongs to the jews

And yet you don't realise that the Jewish canon was not closed until the Council of Jamnia in AD 90. Prior to that the Jews and then the Christians used the Septuagint, which guess what, contained these books

Besides, the Samaritans and the Sadducees both kept ONLY the Pentateuch and rejected the books of the Prophets etc. --> so do you reject Isiaih, Ezekiel etc. because it was rejected by these Jews?

Ethiopian Jews -- arguably the oldest untouched form of Jewry use the same canon with these 7 books

Even the earliest Christian books refer to these books:

The Didache (AD 70): "You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]"

And there are others, many other references.

[Cronos]

Let's take your points:

1. Christocentric: is Obadiah Christocentric? Arguably Maccabees with its story of the Jews being saved is as Christocentric as Obadiah or Judges.

2. Yes, the 7 books in question were accepted as inspired by Jews and hence in the Septuagint as well as used by Ethiopian Jews

3. No, the Pharisees in AD 90 rejected them as part of the drive to eradicate the Christian sect. The Sadducees, Samaritans rejected all the Prophets too -- do you consider that good? Or would you follow the Pharisees? Ethiopian Jews never rejected these books, so hence, your point 3 is wrong

4. No, they do not contain any teachings contrary to the rest of the Bible or even the OT -- if you think so, tell us and tell the Ethiopian Jews who still jeep these

5. Where exactly do you get that they were not in Hebrew? Do you think the Maccabees would write in Greek, the language of their arch-enemy?

6. Yes -- check the references in the Didache -- now if you want to contradict Apostolic Age early Christians and set up your own religion, ok...

[Cronos]

Actually, note that Luther's German Bible and the first Edition of the KJV did contain these 7 Deuterocanonical books.

Only later groups removed them (going against Rev 22:19 I might add).

[jjotto]

RE: the Jewish canon was not closed until the Council of Jamnia in AD 90

http://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48939022.html

The Men of the Great Assembly — in Hebrew, Anshei Knesset HaGedolah — was an unusual group of Jewish personalities who assumed the reigns of Jewish leadership between 410 BCE and 310 BCE...

...the Men of the Great Assembly decide which of the multitude of Jewish holy writings should be in the Bible. The Jewish people have produced hundreds of thousands of prophets (both men and women). Which of their writings should be preserved for future generations and which had limited applicability?

The Men of the Great Assembly make this decision and give us what is known as the Hebrew Bible today — or the Tanach. (Tanach is a Hebrew acronym which stands for Torah, Prophets, Writings.)...

[Cronos]

thank you jjotto

The Men of the Great Assembly make this decision and give us what is known as the Hebrew Bible today — or the Tanach. (Tanach is a Hebrew acronym which stands for Torah, Prophets, Writings.)..

And yet, friend, the Sadducees and the Samaritans both rejected the Prophets and the Writings, while the Ethiopian Jews accepted both these and the 7 deuterocanonical books.

Secondly, you state the date ending in 310 BC -- was the canon "closed" at that date? No, they were not "closed" -- the canonization process did not end until c 200 AD

The Torah was canonized c 400 BC, the Prophets c 200 BC but the Writings only by c 100 AD and that too, it was closed by Rabbinical Judaism (Phariseeism) yet even then, post Jamnia there were disputes over the Book of Esther and Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs

Even so, the Midrash Koheleth describes 24 books, but Josephus describes only 22 rejecting Esther and Ecclesiastes which were not yet considered canon.

[jjotto]

I do realize there are alternative histories and timelines. That’s just the point. The ‘Jamnia Council’ story of the canon is a hypothesis not accepted by the consensus of Torah authorities.

[Cronos]

Which part of the Jamnia Council is disputed, seriously?

I mean, the Sadducees and Samaritans rejected both the Prophets and the Writings. The Ethiopian Jews accepted the 7 books of the Deuterocanon as part of their canon.

If our non-orthodox friend here wants to say that she follows the canon of the Jews, then which of these three canons? Seriously.

[Iscool]

The Apostles didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura.Yes they did, absolutely...

Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

[jjotto]

Jews have always understood the concepts of ‘prophecy’ and ‘canon’ differently than Christians. There is a hierarchy of descending sanctity: Five Books of Moses first, Prophets second, and Writings (which include Daniel, BTW) third. But it does not end there. Jews believe the Mishnah was inspired, followed the Gemara, and then later works, about which there are still shadows of debate, such as the Zohar or Targum Onkelos.

When Christianity diverged into the New Testament, it was lost to Judaism. That probably took place over a period of time, different places sooner than others, yielding varying versions of the ‘canon’.

[Iscool]

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

This and the rest of the verses you posted proves that what you are referring to was written 'after' the scriptures were complete and available...

[Cronos]

was written 'after' the scriptures were complete and available.

Interesting -- the Wisdom of Solomon was written in the 2nd century BC.

So , if scripture were completed and closed, d'you mean that the Gospels are not, according to you, scripture?

And, also note that
Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

That's a prophecy proving Christ as Messiah -- you think that Christ was the Messiah or not?

[Cronos]

Jews have always understood the concepts of ‘prophecy’ and ‘canon’ differently than Christians

Yes, that is why the Sadducees and the Samaritans rejected the Writings and the Prophets in their canon

Also the Ethiopian Jews retain a different canon with the 7 deuterocanonical books

Note -- I'm not aiming to dispute which canon is right for Judaism. That's for Jewish folks to debate and discuss among themselves.

God bless you folks while you do this.

As the Cathechism reiterates

To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."

We Catholics definitely reject the doctrines of many of the groups I've replied to here who say that the Jews are not the chosen people any more.

[RnMomof7]

The hebrew canon has never held those book.. all the OT is written by Jewish prophets in Hebrew
Jerome did not include them in the canon, Epiphanius rejected them all.
Hilary ) rejected the apocrypha

I could go on...but for someone to say that they were a part of the official Hebrew canon is wrong..

[RnMomof7]

Exactly ..