ECT A Review of the Five Solas

Sola Gratia: The Grace of God alone saves

Sola Fide: Through the gift of faith alone

Solus Christus: In the righteousness of Jesus Christ, alone

Sola Scriptura: As He is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, alone

Soli Deo Gloria: To the glory of God alone


Any evangelism that omits or neglects any one of these five biblical truths, presents a false gospel message that lacks the power to save souls.

A Review of the Five Solas

Nang said:

Sola Gratia: The Grace of God alone saves

Sola Fide: Through the gift of faith alone

Solus Christus: In the righteousness of Jesus Christ, alone

Sola Scriptura: As He is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, alone

Soli Deo Gloria: To the glory of God alone


Any evangelism that omits or neglects any one of these five biblical truths, presents a false gospel message that lacks the power to save souls.

Click to expand...

As I read this, I let out a long exasperated sigh, knowing this is going to be another discussion that will probably be unproductive. I always strive for understanding at best, and a discussion stalemate at worst. But those are the aspirations of ideals and not reality (most times). So here goes.

Sola Scriptura is in direct contradiction with itself logically.

Sola Fide, when grouped with Sola Scriptura, is a hypocritical system, as it is not found in Scripture.

These two have no Scriptural basis (at least in terms of accuracy), yet are utilized to dismiss all other doctrines as "not Scriptural."

Sola Scriptura is the easier one to disprove due to logical gaps and hypocrisy. Sola Fide is also easy, yet those who hold fast to it will reject logic that disproves it, usually with a somewhat dismissive attitude.

I am happy and open to defend my statements.

Let's face it; if you didn't want some form of debatable discussion, such a post would never have been made. (Most posts on TOL are not solely educational in intent. Even those that are spark debate/discussion)


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

jsanford108 said:

As I read this, I let out a long exasperated sigh, knowing this is going to be another discussion that will probably be unproductive. I always strive for understanding at best, and a discussion stalemate at worst. But those are the aspirations of ideals and not reality (most times). So here goes.

Sola Scriptura is in direct contradiction with itself logically.

Sola Fide, when grouped with Sola Scriptura, is a hypocritical system, as it is not found in Scripture.

These two have no Scriptural basis (at least in terms of accuracy), yet are utilized to dismiss all other doctrines as "not Scriptural."

Sola Scriptura is the easier one to disprove due to logical gaps and hypocrisy. Sola Fide is also easy, yet those who hold fast to it will reject logic that disproves it, usually with a somewhat dismissive attitude.

I am happy and open to defend my statements.

Let's face it; if you didn't want some form of debatable discussion, such a post would never have been made. (Most posts on TOL are not solely educational in intent. Even those that are spark debate/discussion)


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Click to expand...

No, I did not post to trigger any new debate. No reason to do so.

These truths are fundamental to the Protestant faith, and unfortunately many Protestants forget their heritage and need to be reminded once in a while, why they are not Roman Catholics.

It is understandable a Roman Catholic would sigh, when being reminded of the core issues of the break with their religious system.

Nang said:

No, I did not post to trigger any new debate. No reason to do so.

These truths are fundamental to the Protestant faith, and unfortunately many Protestants forget their heritage and need to be reminded once in a while, why they are not Roman Catholics.

It is understandable a Roman Catholic would sigh, when being reminded of the core issues of the break with their religious system.

Click to expand...

I do think it makes sense then to remind Protestants why they are Protestant. That is admirable on your part.

Obviously, I disagree that these "core issues" break my religious system. Three we agree on. It is the two I highlighted in my first response that are the products of the imaginations of Luther and other first Protestants.

Thanks for the post.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Nang said:

Sola Gratia: The Grace of God alone saves

Sola Fide: Through the gift of faith alone

Solus Christus: In the righteousness of Jesus Christ, alone

Sola Scriptura: As He is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, alone

Soli Deo Gloria: To the glory of God alone


Any evangelism that omits or neglects any one of these five biblical truths, presents a false gospel message that lacks the power to save souls.

Click to expand...

Amen!

The Grace of God alone saves Ephesians 2:8-9

Sola Fide: Through the gift of faith alone Galatians 2:16

Solus Christus: In the righteousness of Jesus Christ, alone Romans 3:20-21

Sola Scriptura: As He is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, alone Luke 24:44-45

Soli Deo Gloria: To the glory of God alone I Peter 4:11

Nang said:

The Grace of God alone saves Ephesians 2:8&9

Sola Fide: Through the gift of faith alone Galatians 2:16

Solus Christus: In the righteousness of Jesus Christ, alone Romans 3:20-21

Sola Scriptura: As He is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, alone Luke 24:44-45

Soli Deo Gloria: To the glory of God alone I Peter 4:11

Click to expand...

Sola Fide Counter- James 2:24 "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone." The whole letter of James in fact, counters "faith alone" doctrine.

Sola Scripture Counter - The "Scriptures" at the time Jesus spoke these things was solely the Old Testament. In fact, all reference to "Scriptures" in the New Testament refer directly (at the time they spoke) to the Old Testament. Combine that with 1 Timothy 3:15: "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

jsanford108 said:

Sola Fide Counter- James 2:24 "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone." The whole letter of James in fact, counters "faith alone" doctrine.

Click to expand...

The NKJV reads: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

Sanctified and holy works are evidence of a soul's justification (forgiveness) in Christ, and a witness to the Spirit of Christ's indwelling.

For example, when one is forgiven, they will evidence capacity to forgive others. There is no such thing as a forgiven Christian, who will not forgive others. Anyone who professes to be forgiven, must evidence justification with God, else his profession of faith is a dead thing. The Spirit of Christ cannot be so denied or contradicted. (e.g. Matthew 6:15)

James speaks of the eye-witness of justification, manifested by those who profess forgiveness in Christ; not the means of justification that Paul taught, which is solely the blood, resurrection, grace, and forgiveness found by faith in Jesus Christ, alone. Ephesians 2:8-9

The RCC convolutes the doctrines of Justification and Sanctification, which seems contradictory, but is not. Two different subjects of doctrine with two different applications in praxis.

Sola Scripture Counter - The "Scriptures" at the time Jesus spoke these things was solely the Old Testament. In fact, all reference to "Scriptures" in the New Testament refer directly (at the time they spoke) to the Old Testament. Combine that with 1 Timothy 3:15: "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

Click to expand...

Correct. That is why the canon of Scripture was determined by requirement that the N.T. writings can be supported by O.T. scriptures. In fact, that is why the Protestants have dropped the Apocrypha, for lack of substantiation.

And the "church" of the living God, is indeed the arbiter of what is and what is not the Truth of God. There is disagreement between the RCC and Reformers about who exactly makes up the spiritual church body.

But none of this pertains to Sola Scriptura, as taught by the Reformers.

Sola Scriptura is the belief that the revelations of Holy Scripture, are the final authority in a believer's faith and practice. Scripture overrules religious traditions or even the Papal authority. Even as the Protestant Bishops must stand the scrutiny of the Word of God, for all are only fallible men. Holy Scripture is the infallible revelation inspired of God. II Timothy 3:16

Thank you for your comments. These two matters are clear examples of the differences between our two faiths. It is a discussion that has continued within Christendom for way over 500 years, and these are a couple of reasons for the historical Protestant Reformation. So it is highly likely you and I will reach accord, but it is important we can voice our differences without enmity or insults.

jsanford108 said:

Sola Fide Counter- James 2:24 "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone." The whole letter of James in fact, counters "faith alone" doctrine.

Click to expand...

Faith is 'what I believe.' The reason it is used in conjunction with Salvation is based wholly upon the one whom one has faith in. Therefore, James is talking about "his belief." In what sense then, is 'works' part of his statement? For his salvation? :nono: Faith, by its own definition, is 'belief in another.' There is no way that that can be 'works' oriented. Rather, James says he will 'show his faith' such that he is talking about sharing his faith with another. Because Catholics have gotten it so wrong, for so long, the need for the Reformation took place. What you have to do, is decide if we are interpreting scripture correctly, or you are. In a way, the RC forbids you from seeking out the matter and has taken that matter over 'for you.' Thus, you are fully dependent upon the interpretations of the RC. We, as Protestants, are not. It is well worth the time of discussion because our premise for obtaining and understanding truth are different. If Christ has implanted in you, His ability to discern the word of God, you can do it. Hebrews 8:10; 10:16

jsanford108 said:

Sola Scripture Counter - The "Scriptures" at the time Jesus spoke these things was solely the Old Testament. In fact, all reference to "Scriptures" in the New Testament refer directly (at the time they spoke) to the Old Testament. Combine that with 1 Timothy 3:15: "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

Click to expand...

:nono: Not correct. 2 Peter 3:16 for example.

Nang said:

Sanctified and holy works are evidence of a soul's justification (forgiveness) in Christ, and a witness to the Spirit of Christ's indwelling.

For example, when one is forgiven, they will evidence capacity to forgive others. There is no such thing as a forgiven Christian, who will not forgive others. Anyone who professes to be forgiven, must evidence justification with God, else his profession of faith is a dead thing. The Spirit of Christ cannot be so denied or contradicted. (e.g. Matthew 6:15)

James speaks of the eye-witness of justification, manifested by those who profess forgiveness in Christ; not the means of justification that Paul taught, which is solely the blood, resurrection, grace, and forgiveness found by faith in Jesus Christ, alone. Ephesians 2:8-9

The RCC convolutes the doctrines of Justification and Sanctification, which seems contradictory, but is not. Two different subjects of doctrine with two different applications in praxis.





In fact, that is why the Protestants have dropped the Apocrypha, for lack of substantiation.


Sola Scriptura is the belief that the revelations of Holy Scripture, are the final authority in a believer's faith and practice. Scripture overrules religious traditions or even the Papal authority. Even as the Protestant Bishops must stand the scrutiny of the Word of God, for all are only fallible men. Holy Scripture is the infallible revelation inspired of God. II Timothy 3:16

Thank you for your comments. These two matters are clear examples of the differences between our two faiths. It is a discussion that has continued within Christendom for way over 500 years, and these are a couple of reasons for the historical Protestant Reformation. So it is highly likely you and I will reach accord, but it is important we can voice our differences without enmity or insults.

Click to expand...

If I may touch on what you have provided. First off, I do think this is a good discussion. (I, like yourself I assume, do prefer more archaic translations, such as the KJV, Douay-Rheims, etc.)

Before I begin, I wish to express my gratitude for this discussion. I assure you, I am in no way attacking you or your intellect. If I call something "ignorant," it is intended as it is defined. The same as "beliefs" or "views," as I know that many of which we hold are those we have been indoctrinated with since childhood.

"James speaks of the eye-witness of justification, manifested by those who profess forgiveness in Christ; not the means of justification that Paul taught, which is solely the blood, resurrection, grace, and forgiveness found by faith in Jesus Christ, alone. Ephesians 2:8-9" The first part of this quote is not found Scripturally. The application of Ephesians meaning "faith alone" is not found in Scripture, rather it is a view/theory that many Protestants argue and place into Scripture. It says "saved by grace through faith." Combine that with James words, and you have faith+works. Which actually makes cohesive sense. It does not render works useless, and places special emphasis on faith.

"The RCC convolutes the doctrines of Justification and Sanctification, which seems contradictory, but is not:" Actually, the RCC's teaching doesn't sound contradictory. And it is the only Christian teaching that doesn't have Scripture that contradict it. So, saying that the RCC convoluted it to make it seem contradictory is actually kind of a falsehood.

"Sola Scriptura is the belief that the revelations of Holy Scripture, are the final authority in a believer's faith and practice. Scripture overrules religious traditions or even the Papal authority. Even as the Protestant Bishops must stand the scrutiny of the Word of God, for all are only fallible men. Holy Scripture is the infallible revelation inspired of God. II Timothy 3:16:" This quote has a few things in it. Quite a robust quote, which I must congratulate you on.

Saying "Scripture overrules religious traditions or even the Papal Authority" is accurate. And we both agree on that. Which really flows into your follow up point: "For all are only fallible men." True. That is a key misunderstanding many Protestants have about "the infallibility of the Pope." First, he is fallible. He is a man. He will sin and fall short many times. He is only declared infallible when speaking/declaring doctrines. He will never produce new Scripture. He will never overrule Scripture. He will always answer to Scripture, and most of all to God/Christ. In over 2,000 years, no Pope has declared any doctrine contrary to Scripture. Which itself is kind of crazy, given how many corrupt Popes there have been.

On your quote, "Holy Scripture is the infallible revelation inspired of God. II Timothy 3:16," I say Amen, brother. That is truth. There is no disagreement there. However, the quote of 2 Tim 3:16 is not means of proving Sola Scriptura. Recall once again, at the time of this letter, Scripture was the Old Testament only. There was no New Testament canon or book. To further substantiate my claim, examine my quote of 1 Tim 3:15. It gives clear admission that a physical building, ie "Church," hold authority of truth. In this passage, "church" is not the mystical body of Christ, rather a physical literal building. The "House of God." The same vocabulary here is the exact same (including in original texts) as those describing the Temple build by Solomon.

The reason I included the Apocrypha quote was because it is a slightly disputable issue, but I didn't think it was worth taking our time to address, unless you felt it would contribute to our conversation. And no worries, I will not have enmity towards you, or result to petty insults. And I feel you have conducted yourself in a likewise classy and reputable manner, thus far.

Okay, Lon; here we go.

"Therefore, James is talking about "his belief." In what sense then, is 'works' part of his statement? For his salvation:" This is stated nowhere, nor supported in, Scripture. This is more of theory/doctrine which is read into Scripture, rather than derived from it.

"What you have to do, is decide if we are interpreting scripture correctly, or you are:" Obviously, my point above ties into this point. I believe you are reading doctrine into Scripture, rather than interpreting it.

"the RC forbids you from seeking out the matter and has taken that matter over 'for you.' Thus, you are fully dependent upon the interpretations of the RC:" This is a common misunderstanding and misapplication to the RCC. The RCC encourages people to seek the truth, always. I am actually a convert to Catholicism. I was a devout Baptist. It was when I truly read the Scriptures, free of doctrine, that I found that many of the doctrines I held were contradictory to the Scriptures, themselves. So I determined to derive all my doctrines from Scripture alone (at the time, Sola Scriptura was a doctrine I held fast to). After finishing Systematic Theology, I realized that no one was agreeing on many doctrines that I had found in Scripture. It was then I discovered that the Roman Catholic Church was actually the only one holding the same doctrines that I had derived from the Scriptures, independently. That is what made me consider Catholicism. So really, reading the Bible as it is written, made me Catholic.

"Not correct. 2 Peter 3:16 for example:" I am not sure what you mean here. 2 Peter does not contradict my point in any capacity. And if you think that is the case, then 2 Peter is contradicting 1 Timothy. And yes, all "Scripture" references in the New Testament are referring to the Old Testament. This is simple historical accuracy that I was pointing out.

Understood properly, Holy Catholicism and the Five Solas are in agreement with each other. :idunno: Having held to both.

jsanford108 said:

The application of Ephesians meaning "faith alone" is not found in Scripture, rather it is a view/theory that many Protestants argue and place into Scripture. It says "saved by grace through faith." Combine that with James words, and you have faith+works. Which actually makes cohesive sense. It does not render works useless, and places special emphasis on faith.

Click to expand...

Holy works of obedience are not useless. They validate a Christian's profession of faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

However, even sanctified works of obedience are never to be added as criteria to the basis for the Christian's justification. We are forgiven our sins, by the grace of God only. Never because of our actions, decisions, lifestyle, etc.

Justification: No works
Sanctification: Validated by evidence of Holy Spirit fruit

Saying "Scripture overrules religious traditions or even the Papal Authority" is accurate. And we both agree on that. Which really flows into your follow up point: "For all are only fallible men." True. That is a key misunderstanding many Protestants have about "the infallibility of the Pope." First, he is fallible. He is a man. He will sin and fall short many times. He is only declared infallible when speaking/declaring doctrines.

Click to expand...

This to me violates the logical law of contradiction. Being human, popes can only be fallible at all times.

He will never produce new Scripture. He will never overrule Scripture. He will always answer to Scripture, and most of all to God/Christ.

Click to expand...

Fine, but you must admit that it is impossible for any fallible person to form doctrine apart from infallible Holy Scripture. That your church claims the basis for the infallibity of a pope, are ex cathedra utterances, is humanly impossible, unless all your believers resort to gnostic mysticism and superstition. . . and that is not saving faith, at all.

However, the quote of 2 Tim 3:16 is not means of proving Sola Scriptura. Recall once again, at the time of this letter, Scripture was the Old Testament only. There was no New Testament canon or book.

Click to expand...

When Timothy spoke these words, he was inspired by God to validate the canon that was to come. Such was the purpose of God, if not in linear time, but eternity. The whole of the Holy Scriptures reflect the eternal mind and purposes of God, regardless of the timetable of revelation given to men.

To further substantiate my claim, examine my quote of 1 Tim 3:15. It gives clear admission that a physical building, ie "Church," hold authority of truth. In this passage, "church" is not the mystical body of Christ, rather a physical literal building. The "House of God." The same vocabulary here is the exact same (including in original texts) as those describing the Temple build by Solomon.

Click to expand...

I Timothy 3:15 instructs Christian behavior during worship, but surely you do not give divine authority according to being bodily found within a tangible product of mens' hands?

No, the church of God is a spiritual, organic body of believers, made without hands by God. Mark 14:58, Colossians 2:11 A body built upon Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18); of which He is head. Ephesians 1:22, 5:29-32; Colossians 1:18

I will not have enmity towards you, or result to petty insults. And I feel you have conducted yourself in a likewise classy and reputable manner, thus far.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind words, and in full disclosure, I must tell you that I am a female poster . . and for that reason, I will be very hesitant to venture much further in conversation with you, for fear I will be accused of unbiblicly attempting to correct a man in spiritual matters.

I offer the above post only as voicing my Reformed Protestant understanding of the differences between our two beliefs, and giving contextual basis for my holding to the Five Solas.

Nihilo said:

Understood properly, Holy Catholicism and the Five Solas are in agreement with each other. :idunno: Having held to both.

Click to expand...

I am pleased you are familiar with the subject, but cannot see where the RCC and the Reformed hold the same views of the five beliefs.

How do you reconcile the differences . . especially the truths of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura?

jsanford108 said:

Okay, Lon; here we go.

"Therefore, James is talking about "his belief." In what sense then, is 'works' part of his statement? For his salvation:" This is stated nowhere, nor supported in, Scripture. This is more of theory/doctrine which is read into Scripture, rather than derived from it.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. See AMR's post concerning this matter.

jsanford108 said:

"What you have to do, is decide if we are interpreting scripture correctly, or you are:" Obviously, my point above ties into this point. I believe you are reading doctrine into Scripture, rather than interpreting it.

Click to expand...

For your personal interest? Fine. For forum? Nope. This is becoming an assertion game. You'd better serve simply to post a scripture and ask what I think of it, or 'show' what you 'think' is unbiblical. I'm at least providing links and scriptures regarding the matter. You? Just naysaying without lifting an exegetical finger. Was it your intention that we just 'opinionate' back and forth from here on out? :think:

jsanford108 said:

"the RC forbids you from seeking out the matter and has taken that matter over 'for you.' Thus, you are fully dependent upon the interpretations of the RC:" This is a common misunderstanding and misapplication to the RCC. The RCC encourages people to seek the truth, always. I am actually a convert to Catholicism. I was a devout Baptist. It was when I truly read the Scriptures, free of doctrine, that I found that many of the doctrines I held were contradictory to the Scriptures, themselves. So I determined to derive all my doctrines from Scripture alone (at the time, Sola Scriptura was a doctrine I held fast to). After finishing Systematic Theology, I realized that no one was agreeing on many doctrines that I had found in Scripture. It was then I discovered that the Roman Catholic Church was actually the only one holding the same doctrines that I had derived from the Scriptures, independently. That is what made me consider Catholicism. So really, reading the Bible as it is written, made me Catholic.

Click to expand...

Your problem not mine. I actually understand scripture, but we are back to asserting opinion again. So far? A fruitless and posturing discussion. Because there is no fruit to be had in it, we should probably stop. You are convinced. I'm convinced. We disdain each other's theological understanding. I'm convinced a shallow understanding of scripture leads to Catholicism converts (whether you think it true or not).

jsanford108 said:

"Not correct. 2 Peter 3:16 for example:" I am not sure what you mean here. 2 Peter does not contradict my point in any capacity. And if you think that is the case, then 2 Peter is contradicting 1 Timothy. And yes, all "Scripture" references in the New Testament are referring to the Old Testament. This is simple historical accuracy that I was pointing out.

Click to expand...

You can think as you like J. This conversation isn't, so is pointless and without fruit. This isn't the Catholic proselyte forum. This thread is specifically about the 5 solas so I'll get back on topic of the OP from here. -Lon

jsanford108 said:

Okay, Lon; here we go.

"Therefore, James is talking about "his belief." In what sense then, is 'works' part of his statement? For his salvation:" This is stated nowhere, nor supported in, Scripture. This is more of theory/doctrine which is read into Scripture, rather than derived from it.

"What you have to do, is decide if we are interpreting scripture correctly, or you are:" Obviously, my point above ties into this point. I believe you are reading doctrine into Scripture, rather than interpreting it.

"the RC forbids you from seeking out the matter and has taken that matter over 'for you.' Thus, you are fully dependent upon the interpretations of the RC:" This is a common misunderstanding and misapplication to the RCC. The RCC encourages people to seek the truth, always. I am actually a convert to Catholicism. I was a devout Baptist. It was when I truly read the Scriptures, free of doctrine, that I found that many of the doctrines I held were contradictory to the Scriptures, themselves. So I determined to derive all my doctrines from Scripture alone (at the time, Sola Scriptura was a doctrine I held fast to). After finishing Systematic Theology, I realized that no one was agreeing on many doctrines that I had found in Scripture. It was then I discovered that the Roman Catholic Church was actually the only one holding the same doctrines that I had derived from the Scriptures, independently. That is what made me consider Catholicism. So really, reading the Bible as it is written, made me Catholic.

"Not correct. 2 Peter 3:16 for example:" I am not sure what you mean here. 2 Peter does not contradict my point in any capacity. And if you think that is the case, then 2 Peter is contradicting 1 Timothy. And yes, all "Scripture" references in the New Testament are referring to the Old Testament. This is simple historical accuracy that I was pointing out.

Click to expand...

Hi and as a RC , how were you saved , with verses ?

Where do you go when you die , with a verses ??

Check for a Greek word for PURGATORY ??

There is NOT ONE ??

Is there a Greek word for POPE , there is not one , WHY because the bible is written in Greek !!

You mentioned 2 Peter 3:16 and will you explain what the verse means ??

dan p

Lon said:

Incorrect. See AMR's post concerning this matter.


For your personal interest? Fine. For forum? Nope. This is becoming an assertion game. You'd better serve simply to post a scripture and ask what I think of it, or 'show' what you 'think' is unbiblical. I'm at least providing links and scriptures regarding the matter. You? Just naysaying without lifting an exegetical finger. Was it your intention that we just 'opinionate' back and forth from here on out? :think:

Your problem not mine. I actually understand scripture, but we are back to asserting opinion again. So far? A fruitless and posturing discussion. Because there is no fruit to be had in it, we should probably stop. You are convinced. I'm convinced. We disdain each other's theological understanding. I'm convinced a shallow understanding of scripture leads to Catholicism converts (whether you think it true or not).


You can think as you like J. This conversation isn't, so is pointless and without fruit. This isn't the Catholic proselyte forum. This thread is specifically about the 5 solas so I'll get back on topic of the OP from here. -Lon

Click to expand...

Lon,
First, why direct me to AMR's post, he is not an authority is he?

"You'd better serve simply to post a scripture and ask what I think of it, or 'show' what you 'think' is unbiblical. I'm at least providing links and scriptures regarding the matter. You? Just naysaying without lifting an exegetical finger. Was it your intention that we just 'opinionate' back and forth from here on out?" This is just petty, friend. All we can do on these forums is discuss various interpretations, or as you simplify it, "opinions." Scriptures will never change. No matter what kind of doctrine comes out of it.

All we could ever do on TOL is discuss theories, doctrines, opinions, and occasionally Scripture. But when two people hold different doctrine, the conversation inevitably leads to doctrinal debate. Simply due to varying interpretations.

Best wishes, Lon.

jsanford108 said:

Lon,
First, why direct me to AMR's post, he is not an authority is he?

Click to expand...

Yes. He is, in whatever authority I equate. Why didn't you go there and read his post? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? :idunno:

jsanford108 said:

This is just petty, friend.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, but not as an accusation: as an assessment. It is getting off track and simply becoming posturization. To me? Not really worth either of our time. Half my family is Catholic. We both moved opposite directions concerning our understanding of scripture. We 'can' go back to proving points about the 5 solas instead of giving commercials for our belief systems. Will your and my conversation end with you changing? :nono: Me changing? :nono: Our discussion started on Faith alone doctrine from the 5 solas. I gave you James and AMR's link specifically because ALL of us Reformed disagree with your understanding of it. Others relegate James to just a Jewish audience, and only having some universal thruths that would apply directly to gentiles. Either way, it means all Protestants are against the Catholic supposition that the book is talking about faith needing works specifically "in order to save anyone." Even a good many Catholics disagree with your interpretation of works salvation and what you surmise about James. All this, your attempt to debate Sola Fide. Even Nihilo here is saying he accepts/reconciles the 5 Solas. -Lon

Nang said:

Holy works of obedience are not useless. They validate a Christian's profession of faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

However, even sanctified works of obedience are never to be added as criteria to the basis for the Christian's justification. We are forgiven our sins, by the grace of God only. Never because of our actions, decisions, lifestyle, etc.

Justification: No works
Sanctification: Validated by evidence of Holy Spirit fruit



This to me violates the logical law of contradiction. Being human, popes can only be fallible at all times.



Fine, but you must admit that it is impossible for any fallible person to form doctrine apart from infallible Holy Scripture. That your church claims the basis for the infallibity of a pope, are ex cathedra utterances, is humanly impossible, unless all your believers resort to gnostic mysticism and superstition. . . and that is not saving faith, at all.



When Timothy spoke these words, he was inspired by God to validate the canon that was to come. Such was the purpose of God, if not in linear time, but eternity. The whole of the Holy Scriptures reflect the eternal mind and purposes of God, regardless of the timetable of revelation given to men.



I Timothy 3:15 instructs Christian behavior during worship, but surely you do not give divine authority according to being bodily found within a tangible product of mens' hands?

No, the church of God is a spiritual, organic body of believers, made without hands by God. Mark 14:58, Colossians 2:11 A body built upon Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18); of which He is head. Ephesians 1:22, 5:29-32; Colossians 1:18



Thank you for your kind words, and in full disclosure, I must tell you that I am a female poster . . and for that reason, I will be very hesitant to venture much further in conversation with you, for fear I will be accused of unbiblicly attempting to correct a man in spiritual matters.

I offer the above post only as voicing my Reformed Protestant understanding of the differences between our two beliefs, and giving contextual basis for my holding to the Five Solas.

Click to expand...

Nang, I appreciate your logical approach to discussion. And I am honestly enjoying it. Thank you, kind ma'am.

"Holy works of obedience are not useless. They validate a Christian's profession of faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. However, even sanctified works of obedience are never to be added as criteria to the basis for the Christian's justification. We are forgiven our sins, by the grace of God only. Never because of our actions, decisions, lifestyle, etc." I agree completely. There is no point in here we are in disagreement over. I think the reason you might consider a conflict is due to preconceived ideas on what I believe (I could be completely wrong on this assumption, if so, forgive me). I do not think any work is useless. Rather, I argue the opposite. It could be a simple misunderstanding. We all receive forgiveness by the grace of God. All actions are of value.

When you say "This to me violates the logical law of contradiction. Being human, popes can only be fallible at all times," I would have to argue it. There is not really a flaw of logic on my part. When you imply that all humans are fallible at all times, that would mean that every quote and action is debatable. Which itself goes against logic. If you say "Trump is president," I cannot retort "Well Nang is fallible." You have spoken truth, no? So to burden every human with constant fallibility is a removal of ability and truth. I assure you, I know what you intended (I think), but the method of proof was slightly flawed.

If I may add on to the previous point, could a man (in this case, the Pope), by the grace and blessings of our Lord, not produce infallible doctrine?

On to your next point....
"....you must admit that it is impossible for any fallible person to form doctrine apart from infallible Holy Scripture." My rebuttal here is two part, so bear with me. 1.) As stated above, is it not possible, by the Grace of God, to produce an infallible work? 2.)How do you, Nang, know that Holy Scripture is infallible? (If you desire to answer this, I will extrapolate on this point further)

Next....
"When Timothy (I think you meant, Paul) spoke these words, he was inspired by God to validate the canon that was to come." This seems logical on the surface. However, can you prove this? More accurately, can you prove this infallibly from the Scriptures? I do not mean utilizing Scriptures, I mean, a passage that demonstrates concisely that that is what happened when Paul wrote these words.

When you speak of the Body of Christ, or the church, the verses you utilized, were not helpful to your points. For instance, Mark 14:58 is about Christ raising Himself, Body and Spirit, from the dead. So naturally, His Body would not be "made with hands." Colosssians 2:11 is speaking of baptism, not the church. Matthew 16:18 leads to a whole different discussion all together, so I won't touch on that one.

The church of God is a physical building. Just as divinity can be found within a tangible product of mans hands (a church building). For this we can just examine all the examples of tents and temples in the Old Testament. God was physically present in them, not just "in spirit." For example, at the dedication of Solomon's Temple, God appeared in the alter room.

Finally, never fear of being accused of anything such as "unbiblically correcting a man." As you said, men are fallible. Not just males, but females also. So I can be wrong. Trust me, it happens. You can correct me all day long. My wife is one of the most biblically educated people I know. I never even get annoyed when she corrects me. She is the reason I am as rooted in my faith, as I am. (that and my passion for knowledge and God) I may say some point or argument of yours is not logical, or biased, but that comes with discussing doctrines and theories. And I agree with your point addressed to another user, where you say that Catholics and Protestants disagree on two Solas, being Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. You are completely accurate there. Just for the record.

DAN P said:

Hi and as a RC , how were you saved , with verses ?

Where do you go when you die , with a verses ??

Check for a Greek word for PURGATORY ??

There is NOT ONE ??

Is there a Greek word for POPE , there is not one , WHY because the bible is written in Greek !!

You mentioned 2 Peter 3:16 and will you explain what the verse means ??

dan p

Click to expand...

Hello Dan,

Here are my answers.

1) I am redeemed by Christ; and like the Apostle Paul, I am working out my salvation in fear, trembling, and hopeful confidence (without a false assurance). John 3, James 2:24, 2 Cor 5:10, Rom 2:6, Rom 11:22.

2) I hope to go to Heaven. (There are a plethora of Bible verses on Heaven, even in Isaiah, Matthew, etc)

3) Greek for "Purgatory:" kathartirio.

4) There is "not one??" If this was an attempt at sarcasm, it seems to have failed.

5) "Pope" is Latin. The Greek is "papas."

Just because the Bible is written in Greek, and does not contain a word does not mean that word does not exist. Such logic would mean that "president" isn't found in Greek. Or even that George Washington was "president" (because of the excuse "it isn't in the Bible").

6) 2 Peter 3:16- It means that Paul writes the same message throughout his letters. Yet, people will alter the meanings, make false conclusions, or interpret them to their own likings. Due to ignorance or ill will. Thus leading to their own destruction. (It is kind of a straight forward verse).

Easy stuff here, Dan.