Posted on 06/08/2018 8:54:57 AM PDT by Salvation
There are a lot of “solos” sung by our Protestant brethren: sola fide (saved by faith alone), sola Scriptura (Scripture alone is the rule of faith), and sola gratia (grace alone). Generally, one ought to be leery of claims that things work “alone.” Typically, many things work together in harmony; things are interrelated. Very seldom is anyone or anything really “alone.”
The problem with “solos” emerges (it seems to me) in our mind, where it is possible to separate things out; but just because we can separate something out in our mind does not mean that we can do so in reality.
Consider, for a moment, a candle’s flame. In my mind, I can separate the heat of the flame from its light, but I could never put a knife into the flame and put the heat of the flame on one side of it and the light on the other. In reality, the heat and light are inseparable—so together as to be one.
I would like to argue that it is the same with things like faith and works, grace and transformation, Scripture and the Church. We can separate all these things out in our mind, but in reality, they are one. Attempting to separate them from what they belong to leads to grave distortions and to the thing in question no longer being what it is claimed to be. Rather, it becomes an abstraction that exists only on a blackboard or in the mind of a theologian.
Let’s look at the three main “solos” of Protestant theology. I am aware that there are non-Catholic readers of this blog, so please understand that my objections are made with respect. I am also aware that in a short blog I may oversimplify, and thus I welcome additions, clarifications, etc. in the comments section.
Solo 1: Faith alone (sola fide) – For 400 years, Catholics and Protestants have debated the question of faith and works. In this matter, we must each avoid caricaturing the other’s position. Catholics do not and never have taught that we are saved by works. For Heaven’s sake, we baptize infants! We fought off the Pelagians. But neither do Protestants mean by “faith” a purely intellectual acceptance of the existence of God, as many Catholics think that they do.
What concerns us here is the detachment of faith from works that the phrase “faith alone” implies. Let me ask, what is faith without works? Can you point to it? Is it visible? Introduce me to someone who has real faith but no works. I don’t think one can be found. About the only example I can think of is a baptized infant, but that’s a Catholic thing! Most Baptists and Evangelicals who sing the solos reject infant baptism.
Hence it seems that faith alone is something of an abstraction. Faith is something that can only be separated from works in our minds. If faith is a transformative relationship with Jesus Christ, we cannot enter into that relationship while remaining unchanged. This change affects our behavior, our works. Even in the case of infants, it is possible to argue that they are changed and do have “works”; it’s just that they are not easily observed.
Scripture affirms that faith is never alone, that such a concept is an abstraction. Faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Faith without works is not faith at all because faith does not exist by itself; it is always present with and causes works through love. Galatians 5:6 says, For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love. Hence faith works not alone but through love. Further, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 13:2, if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
Hence faith alone is the null set. True faith is never alone; it bears the fruit of love and the works of holiness. Faith ignites love and works through it. Beware of the solo “faith alone” and ask where faith, all by itself, can be found.
Solo 2: Grace alone (sola gratia) – By its very nature grace changes us. Again, show me grace apart from works. Grace without works is an abstraction. It cannot be found apart from its effects. In our mind it may exist as an idea, but in reality, grace is never alone.
Grace builds on nature and transforms it. It engages the person who responds to its urges and gifts. If grace is real, it will have its effects and cannot be found alone or apart from works. It cannot be found apart from a real flesh-and-blood human who is manifesting its effects.
Solo 3: Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) – Beware those who say, “sola Scriptura!” This is the claim that Scripture alone is the measure of faith and the sole authority for the Christian, that there is no need for a Church and no authority in the Church, that there is only authority in the Scripture.
There are several problems with this.
First, Scripture as we know it (with the full New Testament) was not fully assembled and agreed upon until the 4th century.
It was Catholic bishops, in union with the Pope, who made the decision as to which books belonged in the Bible. The early Christians could not possibly have lived by sola scriptura because the Scriptures were not even fully written in the earliest years. And although collected and largely completed in written form by 100 AD, the set of books and letters that actually made up the New Testament was not agreed upon until the 4th century.
Second, until recently most people could not read.
Given this, it seems strange that God would make, as the sole rule of faith, a book that people had to read on their own. Even today, large numbers of people in the world cannot read well. Hence, Scripture was not necessarily a read text, but rather one that most people heard and experienced in and with the Church through her preaching, liturgy, art, architecture, stained glass, passion plays, and so forth.
Third, and most important, if all you have is a book, then that book needs to be interpreted accurately.
Without a valid and recognized interpreter, the book can serve to divide more than to unite. Is this not the experience of Protestantism, which now has tens of thousands of denominations all claiming to read the same Bible but interpreting it in rather different manners?
The problem is, if no one is Pope then everyone is Pope! Protestant “soloists” claim that anyone, alone with a Bible and the Holy Spirit, can authentically interpret Scripture. Well then, why does the Holy Spirit tell some people that baptism is necessary for salvation and others that it is not necessary? Why does the Holy Spirit tell some that the Eucharist really is Christ’s Body and Blood and others that it is only a symbol? Why does the Holy Spirit say to some Protestants, “Once saved, always saved” and to others, “No”?
So, it seems clear that Scripture is not meant to be alone. Scripture itself says this in 2 Peter 3:16: our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, Our Brother Paul speaking of these things [the Last things] as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Hence Scripture itself warns that it is quite possible to misinterpret Scripture.
Where is the truth to be found? The Scriptures once again answer this: you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).
Hence Scripture is not to be read alone. It is a document of the Lord through the Church and must be read in the context of the Church and with the Church’s authoritative interpretation and Tradition. As this passage from Timothy says, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible is a Church book and thus is not meant to be read apart from the Church that received the authority to publish it from God Himself. Scripture is the most authoritative and precious document of the Church, but it emanates from the Church’s Tradition and must be understood in the light of it.
Thus, the problems of “singing solo” seem to boil down to the fact that if we separate what God has joined we end up with an abstraction, something that exists only in the mind but in reality, cannot be found alone.
Here is a brief video in which Fr. Robert Barron ponders the Protestant point of view that every baptized Christian has the right to authoritatively interpret the Word of God.sss
Without a valid and recognized interpreter, the book can serve to divide more than to unite. Is this not the experience of Protestantism, which now has tens of thousands of denominations all claiming to read the same Bible but interpreting it in rather different manners?
And again the Roman Catholic is left wanting in this regard as Rome has not issued a formal teaching on each verse in the Bible.
If what the msgr is alluding to is correct, then the average Roman Catholic who may actually read the texts is not able to understand the texts as Rome has not explained the texts.
I mean, come on.....Roman Catholics like to cite how old their denomination is. You'd think after 1700 yrs of existence they'd gotten around to it by now.
Is it your opinion that the Catholic church is in authority OVER Holy Scripture?
Boring, isn't it? Anytime some Catholic "apologist" uses that insipid, disproven argument, I know that whatever else they are trying to prove with it is suspect and probably bogus. Mr. Pope has lost credibility with this article of his. He's singing to the choir only - the choir that wants their ears tickled and is uninterested in the truth.
Given this, it seems strange that God would make, as the sole rule of faith, a book that people had to read on their own. Even today, large numbers of people in the world cannot read well. Hence, Scripture was not necessarily a read text, but rather one that most people heard and experienced in and with the Church through her preaching, liturgy, art, architecture, stained glass, passion plays, and so forth.
Perhaps if Rome had opened schools and taught their members to read this would not have been a problem....but if people can read the text for themselves they might begin to question Rome.
It wasn't until 1943 that Roman Catholics were given the freedom to read the very Scriptures they claim to have given us.
From the usccb.org...
Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.
Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.
Even today, Roman Catholics only "read" or hear 40.8% of the NT if they attend Sundays and Major Feasts...and this is post Vatican II. Felix Just, S.J. PhD The Catholic Lectionary Website.
And of this total 67% is from the four Gospels of which only 58% is read.
Prior to V2 it was only 16.5% of the NT.
Results from the OT are even more dismal with some 3.7% of the OT "read" or heard at Mass.
And I believe this is over a three year period.
When viewed from that perspective the average Roman Catholic is not "reading" or hearing the Word that much.
But this misses the greater point and it is disappointing to see the msgr regurgitate this talking point from Rome....but I guess one does have to keep drinking the kool-aid.
What the msgr is overlooking I believe is the ability of our ancestors to memorize things.
To cite an example...Mary quoted and/or spoke extensively of the OT in her praise to God after Gabriel's visit.
The written word was given to us for a reason. We have a permanent record of what God has revealed to us. We have a source to check and confirm if a message is legit or not. The Bible is written so people can understand it. God is not writing quantum mechanics.
This is almost comical coming from the msgr in light of the current issues involving Roman Catholicism's current pope.
One of the problems in understanding Scripture, and again this is almost comical considering the source, is not reading the text in context.
Context is crucial to understanding the Scriptures. The msgr wrote an article to that effect several weeks ago...and here we find him not adhering to his own admonition.
The next is to have a working knowledge of the original languages.
This is one of Rome's greatest failures IMHO.
The msgr admitted in a post a year or so ago he had just discovered the Greek. It's as if he'd been hit over the head with a brick over this discovery.
But sadly, most Roman Catholic priests are trained in the Latin to be able to conduct the Mass and other official functions of the RCC. I've not seen many RC seminaries require Greek and/or Hebrew. I will say in fairness though, most non-Roman Catholics, though required to take Greek and Hebrew courses, do not use these once they've graduated seminary.
Sola placemarker
Let me get this straight...is it your contention that when Paul said we are saved by grace through faith and not by works, he was only talking about the works of obeying the Mosaic law?
You skipped over my post. A letter is in written form, and Peter tells us through the Spirit that Paul’s letters are Scripture. Surely you don’t elevate the epistles of Paul above the Gospels?
2 Peter 3:15-17
15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
Yes.
That doesn't matter. And besides they did have Scripture.
Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
2 Peter 3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Colossians 4:15-16 Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.
The letter to the Colossians was already in existence during NT times which clearly disproves the claim that Catholics make that the NT was transcribed from oral tradition some 400 years after the death of Christ. Else Paul could not have given the instructions He did.
And he signed it himself.
Colossians 4:10 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. Remember my chains. Grace be with you.
Let me get this straight...is it your contention that when Paul said we are saved by grace through faith and not by works, he was only talking about the works of obeying the Mosaic law?
Yes.
***
Well then, you don’t know the definition of the word ‘grace’ do you?
If you add anything to grace, even the best of works, in order to earn salvation, then it doesn’t become grace any more.
You can call a cat a dog all day long, but it doesn’t stop it from being a cat. You can claim that grace has to include works all day long, but it doesn’t change the fact that the very definition of grace precludes works.
...and for that matter, considering that right after Paul says that we are not saved by works in Ephesians 2, he says that we are saved FOR good works, using the same word. Meaning that all the Romanists should be doing lots of Jewish things like they’re not.
In other words, the claim that when Paul says that salvation is not by works he only means works of the Jewish law is a great big load of crap.
9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11 which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,d dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
19 “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. 20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angelse of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
‘Catholics make that the NT was transcribed from oral tradition some 400 years after the death of Christ.’
I find this hard to believe. So according to this theory the early Christians destroyed the letters from Paul, Peter, John, etc, and then tried to remember what was in the letters they destroyed? It never occurred to them to make copies of these precious apostolic epistles?
My willing suspension of disbelief just got stretched past the breaking point.
And you were exposed as wrong! Yet in your pride you insist you have not erred. JESUS speaks directly to John to write. In the greek it is a command, not a suggestion.
I tried, too.
I would expect that the VERY FIRST thing they did was make copies of the letters.
Would it be expensive and time consuming?
Sure, but not as bad as they’d like us to think.
If I decided to hand copy the book of Colossians, it would take a few hours.
I’ll bet I could get it done in a day. It’s not that long of a book.
I have noticed that the least plausible theories typically depend on people being extremely stupid. Only if entire congregations were comprised of unusually unintelligent people would nobody think to copy something as precious as a letter from one of the apostles.
X
Your club is self-imploding.
You haven’t proven anything, or refuted a single scripture I’ve referenced to make my point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.