Trying to make sense of the Five "Solas" of Salvation

Arkady

Hi,

I'm trying to make sense of the five protestant solas of salvation . . .

Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
Sola fide ("by faith alone")
Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
Solus Christus ("by Christ alone")
Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

As well as some of them having their own individual contradictions in scripture, collectively the concept(s) seem to be self contradictory.

solodeogloria

Arkady wrote: »

Hi,

I'm trying to make sense of the five protestant solas of salvation . . .

Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
Sola fide ("by faith alone")
Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
Solus Christus ("by Christ alone")
Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

As well as some of them having their own individual contradictions in scripture, collectively the concept(s) seem to be self contradictory.

Good evening all!

Hi OP,

Thanks for your post. I'm interested to discuss this at length. I believe the five solas of the Reformation aren't anything new, nor were they an innovation of the Reformers, but they are summary statements of Biblical truth. I owe people like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and Cranmer a great deal. The strands of the German, Swiss, Scottish and English Reformations are ultimately why we place so much importance in God's word today and are ultimately why in most Christian churches that we encourage those to encounter God through reading His Word.

I'd be interested to hear how these solas are contradictory to Scripture (or even self-contradictory).These are for the most part principles that can be substantiated Biblically with perhaps the only exception being sola scriptura and even then we get pretty close to it in a number of passages.

For context, I touched on my understanding of the Bible in this post.

Much thanks in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

lazybones32

More than one 'sola' kind of negates it being one thing only or alone but hey, it might just be an idiom of sorts.

I've never heard of the last two as being doctrines but I've no problem with the last one. I don't know what glory is though...in the spiritual sense.

Arkady

I suppose the most contradicting thing overall is that if a sola is logically true, e.g. salvation comes from this item alone/only, then it cannot come from other solas as well.

.e.g If salvation come from scripture alone and nothing else, then it cannot come from grace alone, which claims that salvation comes from grace only and alone and not combined with something else.

Either something is sola or it isn't, logically it cannot be with other things, unless some type of sophistry is attempted to try and circumvent/obscure this logical principle, but it can't.

Also if you read scripture in its entirety, scripture itself rejects each of the sola's as being a sola.

lazybones32

And not to forget a non-biblical method was used to remove books from the bible and then claim that that bible alone is the only authority and is sufficient...


It's better not to dwell too much on it or continue an argument that's been going on for 500 years.

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

Thank you all for your posts!

lazybones32 wrote: »

More than one 'sola' kind of negates it being one thing only or alone but hey, it might just be an idiom of sorts.

I've never heard of the last two as being doctrines but I've no problem with the last one. I don't know what glory is though...in the spiritual sense.

Who said the solae were referring to one thing? They are 5 specific disagreements that the Reformers had with Roman Catholic doctrine at the time of the Reformation.

Only to God's glory - is the idea that everything that exists is ultimately for God's glory, that is the ultimate purpose of everything, that God would be glorified and glorified most supremely in God's Son who is His glory. I was just reading the prologue to John's gospel in my Bible reading:

John 1:14 ESV wrote:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

God's glory is Jesus, and Jesus throughout God's gospel is glorified supremely in the cross, and goes back to be in glory with the Father as He was at the beginning (John 17:5).

Arkady wrote: »

I suppose the most contradicting thing overall is that if a sola is logically true, e.g. salvation comes from this item alone/only, then it cannot come from other solas as well.

.e.g If salvation come from scripture alone and nothing else, then it cannot come from grace alone, which claims that salvation comes from grace only and alone and not combined with something else.

Either something is sola or it isn't, logically it cannot be with other things, unless some type of sophistry is attempted to try and circumvent/obscure this logical principle, but it can't.

Also if you read scripture in its entirety, scripture itself rejects each of the sola's as being a sola.

Not all of the solae are referring to salvation. Only sola fide and sola gratia do. However, the Bible also puts these two concepts together in Romans. Are we saying that Paul was contradictory? Of course not!

The two solae are referring to two different aspects of salvation.
Are we saved by our works? - No, by faith alone.
Are we saved through our own merit? - No, we are saved by grace alone
Both of these concepts can be found in Ephesians 2:8-10 together for example. They are New Testament doctrine, not an innovation by the Reformers.

Ephesians 2:8-10 ESVUK wrote:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Can you please explain what the contradiction is and then explain the Bible passages that you would use? I'd love to go through the Bible. We need to use the Scriptures rather than merely saying the Scriptures contradict the Reformers

If the 5 points are not referring just to salvation, then it makes sense that they aren't self-contradictory.

lazybones32 wrote: »

And not to forget a non-biblical method was used to remove books from the bible and then claim that that bible alone is the only authority and is sufficient...


It's better not to dwell too much on it or continue an argument that's been going on for 500 years.

If you are referring to the Apocrypha, the reason why they are not contained in Protestant Bibles is because the Apocrypha is not in the Jewish Bible either. The Apocrypha came later. There was a sound argument on that basis for saying that the Apocrypha was not understood as Scripture by the Jews in the first century and none of it is quoted by the New Testament. Some Protestant churches use it. For example in the 39 Articles of Religion the Anglican church says the following. I've firstly bolded a part that shows an Anglican understanding of sola scriptura here also and then the Anglican understanding of the Apocrypha.

39 Articles of Religion wrote:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of Kings
The First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

I personally don't read it in the same way that I read other parts of the Bible as an Anglican.

I'm thankful to God that the discussion is still going. These 5 points aren't innovations of the Reformers. They are all based on Biblical doctrine. We need constant Reformation to ensure that we are faithful to the Apostles and to God's Son.

I'm thankful for the centenary of the nailing of the 95 Theses at the Schlosskirche in Wittenberg because it began to present a challenge to the abuses in the Roman Catholic church at the time. I'll defend the Reformation on the basis of its godly fruits.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

EirWatcher

Have to agree with lazybones32 on this.

(For disclosure, I'm from the Catholic tradition, by the way.)

solodeogloria - your defense of the solas is laudable, but - from what you say - based on some incomplete information about scriptural changes during the reformation.

Luther not only removed entire books from the bible, but also altered passages of existing scripture to suit the interpretation he wanted promolgated at the time.

You state that the solas aren't innovations of the Reformers but are all based on Biblical doctrine. Which Bible? To take one example: "by faith alone" - Luther altered Paul's doctrine of "we are justified by faith" in the Douay version to say "we are justified by faith only" in his version of the bible (still in protestant bible's today.) He wasn't the only one to make alterations. The reformation began a process that spawned many flavors of bible "scriptura".


I'd recommend a title "Where we got the Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church" by Henry G. Graham.

solodeogloria

Good evening all!

I'm more than happy to defend the legacy and substance of the Reformation but can you please give me examples of Luther removing or changing passages in the Bible? The Apocrypha is clear and I've mentioned why.

I suspect I could show you that the Reformers were just teaching Biblical doctrine with a Catholic Bible.

I wish we would just get to what the issues are. Present some arguments against the Reformers and I will aim to deal with them in a gracious manner God willing. Please provide Scriptures and citations. I'll try my best.

I believe the Reformation was necessary but it wasn't an innovation. It was simply bringing back the apostolic Gospel which was forgotten in Europe.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Nick Park

Arkady wrote: »

Hi,

I'm trying to make sense of the five protestant solas of salvation . . .

Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
Sola fide ("by faith alone")
Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
Solus Christus ("by Christ alone")
Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

As well as some of them having their own individual contradictions in scripture, collectively the concept(s) seem to be self contradictory.

They aren't all "of salvation" as such.

For example, sola scripture is about what Christians see as the revelation from God and our ultimate authority for faith and practice, not about how we get saved.

Neither is it contradictory to list more than one sola with respect to salvation. Christ is the only one who can save us. He only does so on the basis of grace rather than of works. The way we access this grace is only by faith. The glory in this process belongs only to God and not to us. None of those statements contradict each other.

Arkady

So if the some of the solas are not essential to salvation ? Which ones are not ?

Also if they are not alone, but are required in some combination or another, I find that quite contradictory and illogical to the singular claim of alone / only.

Nick Park

Arkady wrote: »

So if the some of the solas are not essential to salvation ? Which ones are not ?

I pointed one out in my previous post. Sola scriptura simply means that the Bible is the ultimate and final authority for faith and practice. That is not necessarily related to salvation at all. Someone can be saved without believing in sola scriptura, and indeed could be saved without ever reading the Bible.

Also if they are not alone, but are required in some combination or another, I find that quite contradictory and illogical to the singular claim of alone / only.

Neither contradictory or illogical.

We use similar 'alone/only' language in many other areas of life without seeing and contradiction or lack of logic.

For example. If a mountaineer is injured and stranded in a blizzard after an avalanche the following 'alone/only' statements can all be equally true.

"Only the Mountain Rescue Service can save him."
"Only a helicopter can save him."
"Only a change in the weather can save him."

There is no contradiction in saying that only one organisation can save the mountaineer, that they can only do so by using a helicopter, and that the helicopter can only fly if the weather changes.

As I stated earlier, there is no contradiction in saying that only Jesus can save, that Jesus only saves by grace, that such grace can only be accessed by faith, and that the glory due to such a salvation should only go to God.

Maybe you are trying too hard to look for a non-existent contradiction rather than genuinely trying to understand what each 'alone/only' claim is actually saying?

Arkady

Nick Park wrote: »

I pointed one out in my previous post. Sola scriptura simply means that the Bible is the ultimate and final authority for faith and practice. That is not necessarily related to salvation at all. Someone can be saved without believing in sola scriptura, and indeed could be saved without ever reading the Bible.

So if sola scriptura is not essential for salvation, are any of the others not essential for salvation ? So how does someone get to know about Christ without scripture and how do they know what they are being told about Christ is correct ?

Neither contradictory or illogical.

We use similar 'alone/only' language in many other areas of life without seeing and contradiction or lack of logic.

For example. If a mountaineer is injured and stranded in a blizzard after an avalanche the following 'alone/only' statements can all be equally true.

"Only the Mountain Rescue Service can save him."
"Only a helicopter can save him."
"Only a change in the weather can save him."

Well which one is it ? because logically, only one of those statements can actually be true.

There is no contradiction in saying that only one organisation can save the mountaineer, that they can only do so by using a helicopter, and that the helicopter can only fly if the weather changes.

Stated correctly in a logical English statement, you could say that only the mountain rescue, along with a helicopter, along with a change in weather can save him.

To say that only a helicopter alone can save him, and only the mountain rescue alone can save him, and only a change in the weather alone, can save him, will never be a true logical statement or sentence.

As I stated earlier, there is no contradiction in saying that only Jesus can save, that Jesus only saves by grace, that such grace can only be accessed by faith, and that the glory due to such a salvation should only go to God.

Except that's exactly not how the five solas are stated / structured, which claim (exc. sola scriptura - which you claim is not essential for salvation) only faith alone can save, only grace alone can save, only Christ alone can save, only glory to God alone can save.

Nick Park wrote: »

Maybe you are trying too hard to look for a non-existent contradiction rather than genuinely trying to understand what each 'alone/only' claim is actually saying?

No, I just think that if any set of claims is to be taken seriously, first they should at least comply with the basic rules of logical structure and not form a logical paradox.

Nick Park

Arkady wrote: »

So if sola scriptura is not essential for salvation, are any of the others not essential for salvation ? So how does someone get to know about Christ without scripture and how do they know what they are being told about Christ is correct ?

That depends what you mean by "essential for salvation". If you mean that it is essential to believe these things to be saved, then none of them are essential.

A statement such as sola fide is a truth about salvation, but it is not essential to believe in it to be saved. Someone can be saved by faith alone, without believing that salvation is by faith alone.

Soli Deo gloria is more a statement of how things should be, rather than an essential. Sadly some people glorify themselves or other people, ascribing to others the glory that is only due to God.

It's perfectly possible for someone to know Christ without Scripture. Others can share the Gospel with them and they can believe on Christ for their salvation without ever having seen a Bible. Indeed, I know people who have had this experience for themselves, living in a society where Bibles were forbidden and as rare as hen's teeth.

Well which one is it ? because logically, only one of those statements can actually be true.

You are committing a rather basic logical error. They can all be true, because they are referring to different aspects of salvation.

The Mountain Rescue Service is the only organisation that can save the climber. The helicopter is the only agency that the organisation can use to save the climber. The change of weather is the only circumstance in which the organisation can use the helicopter.

All three 'only' statements are simultaneously true because they refer to different categories. Therefore they cannot be viewed as competing with each other. It's a fairly basic logical principle and not hard to understand.

Except that's exactly not how the five solas are stated / structured, which claim (exc. sola scriptura - which you claim is not essential for salvation) only faith alone can save, only grace alone can save, only Christ alone can save, only glory to God alone can save.

Nonsense. Can you please cite any serious theologian who has ever claimed that "only glory to God alone can save"? The statement doesn't even make sense.

Wouldn't you rather try to learn what other Christians believe rather than play silly games?

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

OP: did you read my quote from the 39 Articles of Religion on the last page? It sums up sola scriptura and it's relationship to salvation very well.

I agree entirely with Nick on illiteracy and not having Bibles. The point is that the Bible is the only source that contains what is sufficient for salvation. Even if it is conveyed verbally it can be understood and believed.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Arkady

Nick Park wrote: »

That depends what you mean by "essential for salvation". If you mean that it is essential to believe these things to be saved, then none of them are essential.
A statement such as sola fide is a truth about salvation, but it is not essential to believe in it to be saved. Someone can be saved by faith alone, without believing that salvation is by faith alone.

Soli Deo gloria is more a statement of how things should be, rather than an essential. Sadly some people glorify themselves or other people, ascribing to others the glory that is only due to God.

I didn't ask about belief/non belief in the solas, what I asked, in response to you saying they are not all required for salvation, is which ones are essential for salvation. A statement is simply logical or illogical and in accordance with the rules of logic regardless of someone's belief. So far you've clarified that sola scriptura and sola deo gloria are not essential for salvation. Are there any others that are not essential for salvation ?

Nick Park wrote: »

It's perfectly possible for someone to know Christ without Scripture. Others can share the Gospel with them and they can believe on Christ for their salvation without ever having seen a Bible. Indeed, I know people who have had this experience for themselves, living in a society where Bibles were forbidden and as rare as hen's teeth.

Yes, but what I asked is how to people who have never seen scripture know they are being told the truth and an accurate interpretation of scripture ?

Nick Park wrote: »

You are committing a rather basic logical error. They can all be true, because they are referring to different aspects of salvation.

The Mountain Rescue Service is the only organisation that can save the climber. The helicopter is the only agency that the organisation can use to save the climber. The change of weather is the only circumstance in which the organisation can use the helicopter.

All three 'only' statements are simultaneously true because they refer to different categories. Therefore they cannot be viewed as competing with each other. It's a fairly basic logical principle and not hard to understand.

I'm not sure you grasp formal logic and it's importance to the validity of a claim/statement.
Once again you've had to change the original claim from only/alone to with in order for it to make any logical sense, i.e. Only Mountain rescue with a helicopter and with a change in weather. Not your original claim in terms of solas. Sola means alone, not with.

Nick Park wrote: »

Nonsense. Can you please cite any serious theologian who has ever claimed that "only glory to God alone can save"? The statement doesn't even make sense.

Sola Gloria Deo, means glory only to God alone. You've already clarified that sola is not essential for salvation. That was my actual query.

Nick Park wrote: »

Wouldn't you rather try to learn what other Christians believe rather than play silly games?

You shouldn't take it personally when someone points out logical flaws in the structure of a claim. You've tried to resort to ad homiem twice now at the end of your posts. I'm afraid that's also a logical fallacy. I haven't tried to get personal with you, and rather than attempt to make it about me or you or anyone else rather than the subject, I'd like a civil discussion, and I'd appreciate the same in return. Thank you.

Nick Park

Arkady wrote: »

I didn't ask about belief/non belief in the solas, what I asked, in response to you saying they are not all required for salvation, is which ones are essential for salvation. A statement is simply logical or illogical and in accordance with the rules of logic regardless of someone's belief. So far you've clarified that sola scriptura and sola deo gloria are not essential for salvation. Are there any others that are not essential for salvation ?

Maybe you should clarify, then, what you mean by "essential for salvation". You have listed five doctrinal beliefs. If you are not asking about belief or non-belief in them, then what are you asking?

Yes, but what I asked is how to people who have never seen scripture know they are being told the truth and an accurate interpretation of scripture ?

They don't. They take a step of faith, which may or may not be correct. Lots of people get saved while holding erroneous interpretations of Scripture. I doubt if any person has ever lived (except Jesus) who didn't misinterpret Scripture in one way or another.

I'm not sure you grasp formal logic and it's importance to the validity of a claim/statement.

I grasp formal logic just fine, thank you. I still have some of my old text books if you want to borrow them.

Once again you've had to change the original claim from only/alone to with in order for it to make any logical sense, i.e. Only Mountain rescue with a helicopter and with a change in weather. Not your original claim in terms of solas. Sola means alone, not with.

No, I haven't changed anything.

Mountain rescue alone, in the sense that it is the only organisation that can save the climber.

Helicopter alone, in the sense that it is the only equipment that can save the climber.

Change of weather alone, in the sense that no other weather patterns can save the climber.

It would be perfectly legitimate to employ all three claims simultaneously, and nobody would quarrel with that if their intention was to genuinely try to understand the meaning of the statements.

In all communication we get much further if we attempt to understand what the person making a statement is actually trying to convey, rather than trying to put an artificial meaning to their words.

You shouldn't take it personally when someone points out logical flaws in the structure of a claim. You've tried to resort to ad homiem twice now at the end of your posts. I'm afraid that's also a logical fallacy. I haven't tried to get personal with you, and rather than attempt to make it about me or you or anyone else rather than the subject, I'd like a civil discussion, and I'd appreciate the same in return. Thank you.

I haven't taken anything personally. I'm simply pointing out, perfectly civilly, that your posts make it look as if you're playing games rather than making a genuine attempt to understand what others believe. That isn't ad hominem at all.

So let's try again.

Sola scriptura means that Scripture is the ultimate guide for faith and practice.

Solus Christus means that it is Christ alone who saves - not Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna or any other person or deity.

Sola gratia means that Christ saves by grace alone - not by works.

Sola fide means that we access this grace by faith alone - not by ceremonies, good works or rituals.

Soli Deo gloria means that the only one who deserves any glory from our salvation is God Himself.

All five statements make perfect sense and are complementary when understood as the reformers intended. Of course if someone tries to force them into artificial categories and then misapply formal logic to them then neither I nor the Reformers can be held responsible for whatever misunderstandings may ensue.

Speedwell

It really sounds to me like the real statement being implied is something on the order of, "Through Scripture, we have faith in Christ, not by our own doing, but to the credit and by the grace of God". The "onlies" are negative (I don't mean negative as in "bad", but as in contrasting with something else). In other words, I see it as "only Scripture" (i.e. no other verbal communication, whether oral or written, ancient or modern, scientific or mythological, is to be considered a definitive source for Christian faith and practice), "only Christ" (i.e. "no man comes to the Father but by me"; nobody else can save), "only grace" (i.e. if it were not for God's grace, nothing else could be effective to reconcile humanity to God), "only faith" (i.e. nothing else can reconcile God to humanity), and "to God alone the glory" (i.e. nobody else but God can make this whole thing work).

Is that a fair way to look at it?

Arkady

Nick Park wrote: »

Maybe you should clarify, then, what you mean by "essential for salvation". You have listed five doctrinal beliefs. If you are not asking about belief or non-belief in them, then what are you asking?

Essential as in vital, necessary for salvation. I think you're getting mixed up here. I'm interested in (1) the logical validity of a statement/claim (the five solas), and (2) if they are true or not. Any individual's belief/non belief has no effect on the actual accuracy of (1) or (2). So far we haven't managed to get past (1) yet, never mind start discussing if the beliefs (2) can be true or not.

I'm also interested in (3) which Solas are essential for salvation according to Western European / American Protestantism and depending on how that goes, we can get back to (1) and (2).

Nick Park wrote: »

They don't. They take a step of faith, which may or may not be correct. Lots of people get saved while holding erroneous interpretations of Scripture. I doubt if any person has ever lived (except Jesus) who didn't misinterpret Scripture in one way or another.

So it's your claim that there has never been a completely correct interpretation of scripture as a whole, by anyone since Christ ? Is that correct ?

Nick Park wrote: »

I grasp formal logic just fine, thank you. I still have some of my old text books if you want to borrow them.

I've already asked you to leave the superfluous ad hominem commentary and hyperbole out. Is it possible to have a discussion on the topic without you resorting to it ? If not, I'm not interested as it tells me all I really need to know.

Against my better judgement, I'll try once more :

Nick Park wrote: »

Sola scriptura means that Scripture is the ultimate guide for faith and practice.

Solus Christus means that it is Christ alone who saves - not Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna or any other person or deity.

Sola gratia means that Christ saves by grace alone - not by works.

Sola fide means that we access this grace by faith alone - not by ceremonies, good works or rituals.

Soli Deo gloria means that the only one who deserves any glory from our salvation is God Himself.

All five statements make perfect sense and are complementary when understood as the reformers intended. Of course if someone tries to force them into artificial categories and then misapply formal logic to them then neither I nor the Reformers can be held responsible for whatever misunderstandings may ensue.

So far we've established in earlier posts, that Sola scriptura, and Soli Deo gloria are not essential for salvation.

Can you clarify your opinion regarding the following and we might be able to move this on somewhere :

- Is Solus Christus, Chirist alone, essential for salvation and why / why not ?
- Is Sola gratia, grace alone, essential for salvation and why / why not ?
- Is Sola fide, faith alone, essential for salvation and why / why not ?

Nick Park

Arkady wrote: »

Essential as in vital, necessary for salvation. I think you're getting mixed up here. I'm interested in (1) the logical validity of a statement/claim (the five solas), and (2) if they are true or not. Any individual's belief/non belief has no effect on the actual accuracy of (1) or (2). So far we haven't managed to get past (1) yet, never mind start discussing if the beliefs (2) can be true or not.

I'm also interested in (3) which Solas are essential for salvation according to Western European / American Protestantism and depending on how that goes, we can get back to (1) and (2).

I think the problem is that you aren't making yourself clear, because you keep using the phrase "essential to salvation". Usually in theology that phrase would refer to a belief or a characteristic which it is essential to hold if one is to be saved.

Since you seem to be using the phrase in another sense, could you rephrase your question?

Sola fide, for example, is a statement about salvation (that salvation is given on the basis of faith alone, not through good works, ceremonies or rituals). To ask if a statement about salvation is essential to salvation doesn't actually make a lot of sense - so could you rephrase your question please?

So it's your claim that there has never been a completely correct interpretation of scripture as a whole, by anyone since Christ ? Is that correct ?

Since I began my sentence by saying "I doubt if", then it hardly construes a claim. More of a guess. It hardly seems likely to me that anyone is correct in their biblical interpretation on the thousands of subjects to which the Bible speaks. I think most of us are probably mistaken on a whole range of minor subjects.

I've already asked you to leave the superfluous ad hominem commentary and hyperbole out. Is it possible to have a discussion on the topic without you resorting to it ? If not, I'm not interested as it tells me all I really need to know.

Then cut out the silly comments in which you say someone else doesn't appear to be able to grasp logic. If you can't take it, then better not to dish it out.

Nick Park

Now, if by asking if a statement is "essential to salvation", Arkady is asking if it is invariably true about salvation, then the following statements would reflect Reformed thinking.

Sola scriptura is not speaking about salvation at all.

Soli deo gloria refers to who should get all the glory in our salvation. While it is invariably true that God should always get the glory, that does not always happen due to our propensity to boast and to claim credit for ourselves.

Solus Christus, sola gratia and sola fide are invariably true of salvation (provided we are using 'salvation' in its full sense of a conversion experience, not as merely meaning whether someone makes it to heaven or not). In other words, the only way you can become a new creation in Christ, exchanging the old life for the new and passing from darkness to light, is through the unmerited grace of Jesus Christ being accessed through faith.

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

Arkady wrote: »

- Is Solus Christus, Chirist alone, essential for salvation and why / why not ?
- Is Sola gratia, grace alone, essential for salvation and why / why not ?
- Is Sola fide, faith alone, essential for salvation and why / why not ?

Forgive me Arkady but haven't these questions been answered?

My basic answer is that the Bible says so to all of these.

It is only through Jesus that man can be saved. (John 14:6)

It is only by God's grace that we can be saved.

It is only by faith that we can be saved. Both of these can be seen in Ephesians 2:8-10.

Can you please show me passages in the Bible that say we are saved by our works and by our own merit?

Can you please show me passages in the Bible that say we can be saved by someone other than Jesus?

Can you please answer the earlier questions I asked you?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Arkady

Nick Park wrote: »

I think the problem is that you aren't making yourself clear, because you keep using the phrase "essential to salvation". Usually in theology that phrase would refer to a belief or a characteristic which it is essential to hold if one is to be saved.

Since you seem to be using the phrase in another sense, could you rephrase your question?

If belief in Christ is essential for salvation, it's irrelevant to it's accuracy, who believes that it is ,or it isn't true. It won't change the fact that it is, or isn't true.

1+1=2 > it's irrelevant to the accuracy of that statement, who believes it's true or not. It's a logical construct that remains true, no matter who believes or doesn't believe that 1+1=2. Belief in something does't make it true. Non belief in something doesn't make it untrue.

Sola fide, for example, is a statement about salvation (that salvation is given on the basis of faith alone, not through good works, ceremonies or rituals). To ask if a statement about salvation is essential to salvation doesn't actually make a lot of sense - so could you rephrase your question please?


Since I began my sentence by saying "I doubt if", then it hardly construes a claim. More of a guess. It hardly seems likely to me that anyone is correct in their biblical interpretation on the thousands of subjects to which the Bible speaks. I think most of us are probably mistaken on a whole range of minor subjects.

Nick Park wrote: »

Then cut out the silly comments in which you say someone else doesn't appear to be able to grasp logic. If you can't take it, then better not to dish it out.

And yet another post of yours resorts to concluding with argumentum ad hominem.
It won't prevent questioning the subject. It's not about the poster, it's about the subject.

Arkady

Nick Park wrote: »

Now, if by asking if a statement is "essential to salvation", Arkady is asking if it is invariably true about salvation, then the following statements would reflect Reformed thinking.

That's what is being asked, in other words can salvation be obtained without it or not. Is is essential for salvation. for example, I would have thought a Christian would claim that faith in Christ/God is essential for salvation.

Nick Park wrote: »

Sola scriptura is not speaking about salvation at all.

And therefore as you already said, not essential for salvation.

Nick Park wrote: »

Soli deo gloria refers to who should get all the glory in our salvation. While it is invariably true that God should always get the glory, that does not always happen due to our propensity to boast and to claim credit for ourselves.

But what I'm asking is not what some people do and don't do, what some people believe and not believe. Is giving Glory to God alone essential for salavation ?

Nick Park wrote: »

Solus Christus, sola gratia and sola fide are invariably true of salvation (provided we are using 'salvation' in its full sense of a conversion experience, not as merely meaning whether someone makes it to heaven or not). In other words, the only way you can become a new creation in Christ, exchanging the old life for the new and passing from darkness to light, is through the unmerited grace of Jesus Christ being accessed through faith.

So it's clear that faith is essential for salvation, or can someone who does not have any faith "become a new creation in Christ, exchanging the old life for the new and passing from darkness to light, is through the unmerited grace of Jesus Christ alone" ?

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Haven't all these things been explained to you already?

I'd love to answer your questions provided they haven't already been answered. Otherwise one could be forgiven for thinking you don't really want the answers.

Much thanks in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Arkady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

Forgive me Arkady but haven't these questions been answered?

No, there are always going questions about the five solas, they are a large topic that make important claims, and salvation is important, and quite a few basic issues regarding the claims of the five solas with respect to salvation are still outstanding and require clarification. After that we can start examining them in detail.

solodeogloria wrote: »

My basic answer is that the Bible says so to all of these.

It is only through Jesus that man can be saved. (John 14:6)

It is only by God's grace that we can be saved.

It is only by faith that we can be saved. Both of these can be seen in Ephesians 2:8-10.

So out of the five solas, Jesus and God's Grace and faith are essential to salvation is that correct ?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Can you please show me passages in the Bible that say we are saved by our works and by our own merit?

Can you please show me passages in the Bible that say we can be saved by someone other than Jesus?

Why, I haven't made any such claims. Can you please show me where I claimed this ? - In fact I don't know any mainstream Christian denomination that says this. If you claim there is one, start a thread on it and post proof of your claim that they do. Then the truth of your claim can be examined there. This thread topic is for discussing the five solas, and not for attempting to divert attention away from them.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Nick has already explained at length how sola fide, sola gratia and sola christus fit together.

Namely that they are answering different questions.

Please read the previous posts as the answers to that question have already been provided.

Have a great weekend!

Much thanks in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Nick Park

Arkady wrote: »

That's what is being asked, in other words can salvation be obtained without it or not. Is is essential for salvation. for example, I would have thought a Christian would claim that faith in Christ/God is essential for salvation.

Faith is essential for salvation. But to say 'faith alone is essential for salvation' would be highly ambiguous as it could mean two very different things:
a) That faith alone saves you, in the sense that other things (works) cannot access God's grace. (True Statement)
b) That the faith that saves you must be alone. (False Statement)
In other words, somebody might have faith mingled with rituals and good works by which they are trying to earn God's favour. While such rituals and good works cannot save you, their presence will not necessarily stop your faith from accessing the grace of God.

But what I'm asking is not what some people do and don't do, what some people believe and not believe. Is giving Glory to God alone essential for salavation ?

No, God saves all kinds of rascals, including those who fail to give all the glory to Him to whom it rightfully belongs.

So it's clear that faith is essential for salvation, or can someone who does not have any faith "become a new creation in Christ, exchanging the old life for the new and passing from darkness to light, is through the unmerited grace of Jesus Christ alone" ?

The Reformed position would be that without faith it is impossible to enjoy the biblical experience of salvation as described.

Arkady

Nick Park wrote: »

Faith is essential for salvation.
But to say 'faith alone is essential for salvation' would be highly ambiguous as it could mean two very different things:

Indeed the claim "faith alone" is very ambiguous

Nick Park wrote: »

a) That faith alone saves you, in the sense that other things (works) cannot access God's grace. (True Statement)

If you are talking about works alone, I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination that claims this.

If you're taking about Faith and work/doing cannot obtain salvation, where are you getting this from ?

If a rich Christian had the utmost faith in God, but then sat on his porch for the rest of his life, would he obtain salvation, and if so what supports this ?

Nick Park wrote: »

b) That the faith that saves you must be alone. (False Statement)

Not alone then.

Nick Park wrote: »

In other words, somebody might have faith mingled with rituals and good works by which they are trying to earn God's favour. While such rituals and good works cannot save you, their presence will not necessarily stop your faith from accessing the grace of God.

Nick Park wrote: »

No, God saves all kinds of rascals, including those who fail to give all the glory to Him to whom it rightfully belongs.

And how do they have faith ?

Nick Park wrote: »

The Reformed position would be that without faith it is impossible to enjoy the biblical experience of salvation as described.

Do you know any mainstream Christian denomination that claims faith is not essential ?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I think the distinctives between Biblical Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are not in whether or not faith is required, but rather if faith must be supplemented with something else.

It is by faith alone that we are saved. Works don't contribute to our salvation. It can't be faith AND works.

It is by grace alone that we are saved. Not because we've been in God's good books. We are wretched sinners on our own account. Our good works are even like filthy rags. It can't be grace AND merit.

The key dividing points between Biblical Protestantism and Roman Catholicism happened at two events.

The Diet of Worms in 1521 where the Papacy asked Martin Luther to repent of his works. He only repented for inflammatory language in some of his works. He didn't recant Biblical doctrine.

The Council of Trent from 1545 which sought to repudiate Protestant "heresy". It posited that although grace was achieved by the cross it was attained by participation in the Sacraments. It's like the sweets are in the piñata but we have to hit really hard by our human effort to receive the grace. Biblical Protestantism and the Apostolic Gospel in the New Testament agree. Works do not contribute.

Hope this helps you understand why the solas are essential!

Much thanks in the all sufficient grace of our Lord Jesus,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

Arkady wrote: »

Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")

This one is problematic:

1. How are people who lay outside the scriptures to be saved? The scriptures have had very limited application in this history of mankind. It is very problematic to say that a person can't be saved bar through the scriptures given they haven't existed for much of mankinds time on earth.

2. For example: how was Abraham, the father of the faith, saved in pre-scriptural time. God evidently communicated to him and saved him outside Abraham being exposed to scriptures that had yet to be written.

Sola fide ("by faith alone")
Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
Solus Christus ("by Christ alone")
Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

These are reconciled by me as follows:

1. Suppose the mechanism of salvation as follows: God works to draw people to salvation by means of scriptures / conscience / our observations of the world and the working of good and evil 'on the street'. In the case of no scriptures, the other two are sufficient since our conscience and our exposure to the world are an applied-scriptures of sorts.

If a person is drawn to salvation it is because of God's effort. God get's the credit. If a person rejects that drawing and is lost then the credit is theirs

2.

a) The faith obtained by the person is the result of God's work in drawing them ' over the line of salvation' (as it were). It is a badge attached to the saved. And without that badge the person isn't saved. Faith is thus, necessary, in that the right clothes at the banquet is necessary, in order to be considered belonging to the banquet.

b) Grace is merely a way of saying the work done is done by God in the person being pulled over the line

c) By Christ alone means that all those saved have their sin dealt with by Christ: whether me or Abraham. It doesn't mean a person has to believe in Christ as Lord in any conscious sense - rather, Christ is the washing machine through which all saved as made clean for presentation to God

d) Glory to God alone: from the above, who else would the glory go to since it is he who pulled the person over the line.

Arkady

antiskeptic wrote: »

This one is problematic:

1. How are people who lay outside the scriptures to be saved? The scriptures have had very limited application in this history of mankind. It is very problematic to say that a person can't be saved bar through the scriptures given they haven't existed for much of mankinds time on earth.

2. For example: how was Abraham, the father of the faith, saved in pre-scriptural time. God evidently communicated to him and saved him outside Abraham being exposed to scriptures that had yet to be written.

These are reconciled by me as follows:

1. Suppose the mechanism of salvation as follows: God works to draw people to salvation by means of scriptures / conscience / our observations of the world and the working of good and evil 'on the street'. In the case of no scriptures, the other two are sufficient since our conscience and our exposure to the world are an applied-scriptures of sorts.

If a person is drawn to salvation it is because of God's effort. God get's the credit. If a person rejects that drawing and is lost then the credit is theirs.

As well as God and the Person themselves, do you think can other people be involved in someone's salvation, as a result of their prayers for example ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

2.

a) The faith obtained by the person is the result of God's work in drawing them ' over the line of salvation' (as it were). It is a badge attached to the saved. And without that badge the person isn't saved. Faith is thus, necessary, in that the right clothes at the banquet is necessary, in order to be considered belonging to the banquet.

b) Grace is merely a way of saying the work done is done by God in the person being pulled over the line

c) By Christ alone means that all those saved have their sin dealt with by Christ: whether me or Abraham. It doesn't mean a person has to believe in Christ as Lord in any conscious sense - rather, Christ is the washing machine through which all saved as made clean for presentation to God

d) Glory to God alone: from the above, who else would the glory go to since it is he who pulled the person over the line.

Again I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination that doesn't agree with this.

antiskeptic

Arkady wrote: »

As well as God and the Person themselves, do you think can other people be involved in someone's salvation, as a result of their prayers for example ?

Good question. My strong instinct (given a model of God who is scrupulously fair) is to suppose a person's salvation ultimately down to themselves (in the sense of them not rejecting the salvation proffered.

And so I must suppose the efforts of others to be included in the overall 'effort' exerted by God in the attempt to draw a particular individual to himself.

I don't pretend to understand what value a persons prayer would have to a God who could (and would, according to the above model) make up for any 'shortfall' arising the lack of prayer from those who could contribute. All I know is that he involves us in his work and that our prayers have value.

Again I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination that doesn't agree with this.

I gather plenty have problems with 1. Many hold that you have to "accept Christ into your heart" or "believe in his finished work" to be saved. I would suppose folk can be saved without ever having heard of Christ. Would that not be a problem to mainstream denominations?

2. The object of faith would be problematic for many. Some would suppose "faith in Jesus Christ" or " in his atoning work". I would insert the word "believe God" for faith since Abraham "believed God" and was saved (so goes the model of NT salvation). Believing God is quite a different matter (in that it opens a whole raft of things one can believe God about) to modern faith requirements

3. Roman Catholicism supposes a person contributing to their being pulled over the line. Certain things have to be done by the person. Active work is required. There is a nod to the potential for salvation outside RC works but this strikes as a bit of a fudge since reference is made to the 'mystery of God' (i.e. we don't know)

4. As above, some would require a belief in Christ before crossing the threshold into salvation.

5. Again, RC problematic here since the credit can be part shared by those who contribute to their own salvation (or in RC, don't lose salvation granted to them by a failure to carry out necessary works)

Arkady

antiskeptic wrote: »

I gather plenty have problems with 1. Many hold that you have to "accept Christ into your heart" or "believe in his finished work" to be saved. I would suppose folk can be saved without ever having heard of Christ. Would that not be a problem to mainstream denominations?

I would have thought that those, who due to no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospels and Christ, cannot be held accountable for that ignorance, but instead can be held accountable in other ways. I'm sure God has his way of judging such.

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. The object of faith would be problematic for many. Some would suppose "faith in Jesus Christ" or " in his atoning work". I would insert the word "believe God" for faith since Abraham "believed God" and was saved (so goes the model of NT salvation). Believing God is quite a different matter (in that it opens a whole raft of things one can believe God about) to modern faith requirements

Yes but Abraham did a lot more than simply believe/have faith in God.
Or could a wealthy man really self declare his utmost faith in God and then sit crossed legged under a shady palm tree for the rest of his life, secure in the notion of his now guaranteed salvation ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

3. Roman Catholicism supposes a person contributing to their being pulled over the line. Certain things have to be done by the person. Active work is required. There is a nod to the potential for salvation outside RC works but this strikes as a bit of a fudge since reference is made to the 'mystery of God' (i.e. we don't know)

4. As above, some would require a belief in Christ before crossing the threshold into salvation.

5. Again, RC problematic here since the credit can be part shared by those who contribute to their own salvation (or in RC, don't lose salvation granted to them by a failure to carry out necessary works)

How does a Christian love their neighbour as themselves ?
Again scripture is full of examples of those who don't simply say Lord, Lord, but also do God's will.

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

Arkady - thanks for your post.

Arkady wrote: »

Yes but Abraham did a lot more than simply believe/have faith in God.
Or could a wealthy man really self declare his utmost faith in God and then sit crossed legged under a shady palm tree for the rest of his life, secure in the notion of his now guaranteed salvation ?

Abraham wasn't saved by works. But faith without works is dead. Works don't save but they are the fruit of faith.

The Bible is clear on this fact in Romans chapter 4 and in Hebrews 11. God can speak clearly through the Bible.

Let me quote the section on Romans 4:

Romans 4:1-8 ESVUK wrote:

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Works do not save people. They don't contribute to their salvation. Otherwise grace isn't a gift any longer.

Let's thrash it out.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

Arkady wrote: »

I would have thought that those, who due to no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospels and Christ, cannot be held accountable for that ignorance, but instead can be held accountable in other ways. I'm sure God has his way of judging such.

That would be the majority of people who have ever lived.

The Bible doesn't give indication of two ways of salvation, just the one. Which means the essence of what saves must be the same for all people, irrespective of whether or not they have heard the gospels or of Christ. Which would appear to indicate that hearing the gospels and of Christ, aren't in themselves the essence of salvation.

The thief on the cross is an interesting example. Cursing Christ one minute, then acknowledging his as Lord and saviour the next. You could say that he is saved by faith in Christ but that wouldn't explain why he had faith in Christ. Indeed, you can say that the something which brought about his change of view was the salvation transaction and his recognition of Christ was a consequence of that change having happened in him. He can be said to be saved by his faith in Christ. But the salvation transaction providing him with that faith is the actual nub of the issue.

And whatever it is, it appears it applies to all who have ever lived and been saved.

Yes but Abraham did a lot more than simply believe/have faith in God.
Or could a wealthy man really self declare his utmost faith in God and then sit crossed legged under a shady palm tree for the rest of his life, secure in the notion of his now guaranteed salvation ?

A person who has been born again, rich or poor, has gone through a monumental change of outlook - they now know there is a God. They now know they are to be saved. They now know they are sided with God in a battle against evil. Just like a person who has gone to visit famine areas and seen the situation with own eyes, the outlook change can be expected to bring about a change in action.

The motivation for change doesn't come from fear of damnation. It comes from change in outlook. As Paul himself argues in Romans: are we to simply go on sinning. By no means: don't we know whose side of the battle we are on. To go on happily sinning, for a Christian, is as incongruous as a Nazi solider, who has come to realise the evil he is fighting and switched to the Allied side, to go on fighting against the Allied side. It's that stark a line drawn.

Which is not to say we won't sin. We have, afterall, the Bible tells us, sin embedded within our body and minds. And we have a personal battle to fight with the desires and lusts of body and mind. And sometimes we will fail. And fail badly. And sometimes, if we are lazy and a slide back into complacency, discipline will come to bear from the commander in chief. Even unto the point of being removed from the game. But declared a traitor and cast into Hell we won't be.

That very notion: grace unlimited is itself a motivator to row in alongside what God is attempting to achieve.

How does a Christian love their neighbour as themselves ?
Again scripture is full of examples of those who don't simply say Lord, Lord, but also do God's will.

As I say, the Christian is under new management. He also has the Spirit of God residing inside, to will and to act according to God's will.

Arkady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

Abraham wasn't saved by works.

Back with this worn out old sectarian strawman/misrepresentation of other denominations yet again ? Just as before, I'm still waiting for you to find any mainstream Christian denomination that claims he was, and post proper proof of it.

Arkady

antiskeptic wrote: »

That would be the majority of people who have ever lived.

The Bible doesn't give indication of two ways of salvation, just the one. Which means the essence of what saves must be the same for all people, irrespective of whether or not they have heard the gospels or of Christ. Which would appear to indicate that hearing the gospels and of Christ, aren't in themselves the essence of salvation.

The thief on the cross is an interesting example. Cursing Christ one minute, then acknowledging his as Lord and saviour the next. You could say that he is saved by faith in Christ but that wouldn't explain why he had faith in Christ. Indeed, you can say that the something which brought about his change of view was the salvation transaction and his recognition of Christ was a consequence of that change having happened in him. He can be said to be saved by his faith in Christ. But the salvation transaction providing him with that faith is the actual nub of the issue.

And whatever it is, it appears it applies to all who have ever lived and been saved.

A person who has been born again, rich or poor, has gone through a monumental change of outlook - they now know there is a God. They now know they are to be saved. They now know they are sided with God in a battle against evil. Just like a person who has gone to visit famine areas and seen the situation with own eyes, the outlook change can be expected to bring about a change in action.

The motivation for change doesn't come from fear of damnation. It comes from change in outlook. As Paul himself argues in Romans: are we to simply go on sinning. By no means: don't we know whose side of the battle we are on. To go on happily sinning, for a Christian, is as incongruous as a Nazi solider, who has come to realise the evil he is fighting and switched to the Allied side, to go on fighting against the Allied side. It's that stark a line drawn.

Which is not to say we won't sin. We have, afterall, the Bible tells us, sin embedded within our body and minds. And we have a personal battle to fight with the desires and lusts of body and mind. And sometimes we will fail. And fail badly. And sometimes, if we are lazy and a slide back into complacency, discipline will come to bear from the commander in chief. Even unto the point of being removed from the game. But declared a traitor and cast into Hell we won't be.

That very notion: grace unlimited is itself a motivator to row in alongside what God is attempting to achieve.

As I say, the Christian is under new management. He also has the Spirit of God residing inside, to will and to act according to God's will.

but this still doesn't explain how a rich man with sincere faith in God, who spends his life sitting cross legged under a shady palm tree, looking forward to his assumed certain salvation, is in fact doing the will of God, or how he is loving his neighbour ?

antiskeptic

Arkady wrote: »

but this still doesn't explain how a rich man with sincere faith in God, who spends his life sitting cross legged under a shady palm tree, looking forward to his assumed certain salvation, is in fact doing the will of God, or how he is loving his neighbour ?

The issue isn't whether sincere faith in God. The question is whether saved or not. If saved then salvation follows - since the person has satisfied ( as earlier outlined in my positing mechanism by which) the criteria for his being granted sure salvation. Whether he does or doesn't do the will of God subsequent to his being saved will have consequences for him but not his losing his salvation. I,ve suggested that he will indeed do more of God' will post-being saved (because of God taking up residence in the man, urging him in that direction). But whether or not, salvation will follow

alma73

Arkady wrote: »

but this still doesn't explain how a rich man with sincere faith in God, who spends his life sitting cross legged under a shady palm tree, looking forward to his assumed certain salvation, is in fact doing the will of God, or how he is loving his neighbour ?

The man you picture would not be following Christ, Christ asks us to Feed the Poor, Visit the Sick, those in prison, To cloth the naked. Salvation is not a passive act, its an active act of following Christ and doing as he asked in the Gospel. To be fair on protestants who do not believe the same theology of salvation as Catholics, don't do have lots of works in their Churches, they are not passive Christians.

Arkady

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue isn't whether sincere faith in God. The question is whether saved or not. If saved then salvation follows - since the person has satisfied ( as earlier outlined in my positing mechanism by which) the criteria for his being granted sure salvation. Whether he does or doesn't do the will of God subsequent to his being saved will have consequences for him but not his losing his salvation. I,ve suggested that he will indeed do more of God' will post-being saved (because of God taking up residence in the man, urging him in that direction). But whether or not, salvation will follow

alma73 wrote: »

The man you picture would not be following Christ, Christ asks us to Feed the Poor, Visit the Sick, those in prison, To cloth the naked. Salvation is not a passive act, its an active act of following Christ and doing as he asked in the Gospel. To be fair on protestants who do not believe the same theology of salvation as Catholics, don't do have lots of works in their Churches, they are not passive Christians.

Yes but its claimed that only faith is essential for salvation, doing anything, including will of God, is completely unnecessary for salvation according to sola fide. Hence the rich man with faith can recline under the palm tree doing nothing, other than looking forward to his reward.

solodeogloria

Happy Easter all!

Arkady wrote: »

Back with this worn out old sectarian strawman/misrepresentation of other denominations yet again ? Just as before, I'm still waiting for you to find any mainstream Christian denomination that claims he was, and post proper proof of it.

My intention isn't to engage in sectarianism, but to look for the truth. I love Jesus and the Gospel and anything that comes anywhere close to making Christ's death void (Galatians 2:21) is worth taking seriously.

I ask these questions out of a genuine love for Christ, a genuine love for you and for others and out of a genuine will to understand you. You should give me that benefit of the doubt.

Arkady wrote: »

Yes but Abraham did a lot more than simply believe/have faith in God.
Or could a wealthy man really self declare his utmost faith in God and then sit crossed legged under a shady palm tree for the rest of his life, secure in the notion of his now guaranteed salvation ?

In this piece of your post it looks like you're suggesting that works contribute to salvation. That's why I posted Romans 4. Our works are in response to the cross. We live for Jesus because we love Him, and His rescue for us. We don't live for Jesus to get brownie points, to earn our way to heaven, or to supplement God's saving death.

God's grace isn't an excuse for licence. Jesus didn't die as a licence for us to sin more, but so that we can repent and live for Him in this life now and in the life everlasting. Paul discusses this in Galatians 5. The question is how do we use our freedom in Christ now?

Paul's answer:

Galatians 5:13-15 ESV wrote:

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

I'm sorry if you construed my point as sectarianism, but it wasn't intended as anything of the sort.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ and His resurrection,
solodeogloria

alma73

Arkady wrote: »

Yes but its claimed that only faith is essential for salvation, doing anything, including will of God, is completely unnecessary for salvation according to sola fide. Hence the rich man with faith can recline under the palm tree doing nothing, other than looking forward to his reward.

Where does Christ say that in the Gospel?

Arkady

alma73 wrote: »

Where does Christ say that in the Gospel?

He doesn't, in either word or deed, nor to any of the apostles, nor any other Christian in the new testament spout or practice sola fide. . that's exactly whole problem with it's false claim. But according to sola fide, that rich dude lying on a deckchair as his servants fetch him cocktails is assured salvation, as long has he has only faith. Doing the will of God is apparently not required.

antiskeptic

Arkady wrote: »

Yes but its claimed that only faith is essential for salvation, doing anything, including will of God, is completely unnecessary for salvation according to sola fide. Hence the rich man with faith can recline under the palm tree doing nothing, other than looking forward to his reward.

You haven't really been reading what's been written, and any objection must object to what's written. Faith isn't the end of the matter. Part of the deal is that God comes to reside in the person by his Spirit. That results in a draw to a change of ways and if that draw is resisted, in disciplining. That discipline has any number of facts - up to and including death.

The rich man might appear to the world to be enjoying the lazy days of sitting under a tree. But he won't be left in peace by God, and not being at peace with God isn't pleasurable. God ensures that much.

Now you can resist to the end of your life, and suffer the consequences of not being at peace with God (and now that you know God exists you know with whom you are not at peace with)

The consequences are, it would appear, a diminishing of the reward given for work in Heaven - the place the saved rich man under the tree knows he is going to. The rich man understands what God's reward is like - he will have, afterall experienced the first fruits of what it is to be at one with God upon his salvation.

And so a tug of war; follow the ways of lost men in satisfying the desires offered by this world. Or follow the ways of God and enjoy that now and moreso in Heaven.

The issue of salvation isn't involved however. That matter has been settled.

alma73

Arkady wrote: »

He doesn't, in either word or deed, nor to any of the apostles, nor any other Christian in the new testament spout or practice sola fide. . that's exactly whole problem with it's false claim. But according to sola fide, that rich dude lying on a deckchair as his servants fetch him cocktails is assured salvation, as long has he has only faith. Doing the will of God is apparently not required.

Exactly, the apostles had faith in Christ, but they also had his mission. If they had not done what Christ had asked would they have been saved? Faith without its works means nothing in this world.

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

Arkady wrote: »

He doesn't, in either word or deed, nor to any of the apostles, nor any other Christian in the new testament spout or practice sola fide. . that's exactly whole problem with it's false claim. But according to sola fide, that rich dude lying on a deckchair as his servants fetch him cocktails is assured salvation, as long has he has only faith. Doing the will of God is apparently not required.

Could you please respond to my post?

There are plenty of passages throughout the New Testament that make it clear that works don't contribute to our salvation. It is only possible with God. I've provided you reason as to why I believe this from Galatians.

You're getting confused between what contributes to our salvation and what we are called to do after our salvation. The latter doesn't save us at all. It merely is the fruit of being saved. Ephesians even says that our good works are even a gift from God:

Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV wrote:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Our salvation remains secure. Jesus said if we are His sheep and hear His voice we will not be snatched out of His hand. (John 10:29)

I can't help but think that the Council of Trent did huge damage in terms of Catholic teaching on salvation and works. The zeal to put Martin Luther down due to "heresy" caused more damage. Luther wrote extensively on Galatians and Romans where he saw the Apostolic teaching that we are only saved by grace through faith in Jesus. That's all. If you add works it lessens the importance of Christ's sacrifice.

Simple maths.
Jesus + works = salvation isn't the same as Jesus = salvation. The first lessens Jesus' death for us. Paul says that's really serious in Galatians. It is nullifying Jesus' death.

Edit: the key question we need to ask is this. Where anywhere in the New Testament does it suggest that works contribute to our salvation?

Much thanks in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Arkady

antiskeptic wrote: »

You haven't really been reading what's been written, and any objection must object to what's written. Faith isn't the end of the matter. Part of the deal is that God comes to reside in the person by his Spirit. That results in a draw to a change of ways and if that draw is resisted, in disciplining. That discipline has any number of facts - up to and including death.

Written by who ? The new testament places great emphasis on actually doing the will of God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The rich man might appear to the world to be enjoying the lazy days of sitting under a tree. But he won't be left in peace by God, and not being at peace with God isn't pleasurable. God ensures that much.

And why if his sola fide leads will lead to guaranteed salvation as it claims ?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Could you please respond to both of my posts?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Arkady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

Could you please respond to my post?

Little point when it's the same strawman every time.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are plenty of passages throughout the New Testament that make it clear that works don't contribute to our salvation.

Again more straw manning, work alone, not work.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is only possible with God.

Which self refutes the claim of its only though faith alone

I've provided you reason as to why I believe this from Galatians.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You're getting confused between what contributes to our salvation and what we are called to do after our salvation.

Why are we called to do it, if its not required ?

The latter doesn't save us at all. It merely is the fruit of being saved. Ephesians even says that our good works are even a gift from God:

solodeogloria wrote: »

Our salvation remains secure.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I can't help but think that the Council of Trent did huge damage in terms of Catholic teaching on salvation and works. The zeal to put Martin Luther down due to "heresy" caused more damage. Luther wrote extensively on Galatians and Romans where he saw the Apostolic teaching that we are only saved by grace through faith in Jesus. That's all. If you add works it lessens the importance of Christ's sacrifice.

"Luther wrote" ? that's some sola scriptura you have now. A man with obvious deep physiological issues and a deep hatred of others, especially the Jewish people, thought he'd invented his own get out card for not doing God's will, and happily used for German politics by a German princes in their political wars with France, unlike the peaceful saints of God down through the centuries, who stood up for Christianity inside the Church, and not by playing Judas to Christianity and pied piper encouraging countless denominations, false teachings, wars and death across western Europe, and in Ireland.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Simple maths.
Jesus + works = salvation isn't the same as Jesus = salvation. The first lessens Jesus' death for us. Paul says that's really serious in Galatians. It is nullifying Jesus' death.

No faith this time, what happened sola fide ? Yet again your false sums don't add up.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: the key question we need to ask is this. Where anywhere in the New Testament does it suggest that works contribute to our salvation?

I notice you've left out Faith yet again. Again repeating the same sectarian strawman, find me a single Christian denomination that claims works alone do. I've asked you that every time, and every time you have ignored it and then duck back in to try the same failedstrawman.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Arkady wrote: »

Little point when it's the same strawman every time.

If it is a strawman, please help me understand you better. I want to do that.

Arkady wrote: »

Again more straw manning, work alone, not work.

By saying works contribute to salvation. I'm not saying works alone save people in the post-Trent thinking. It is that grace is achieved by participating in the Sacraments. I.E - Grace has already been achieved, it's just that you need to work to get it. This is Jesus + works = salvation rather than Jesus Christ alone achieves grace by His death which is received by faith alone. Nick has already explained how the three work together and how we can say they are alone.

Arkady wrote: »

Which self refutes the claim of its only though faith alone

No, it doesn't. Nick explained this to you already, and I've explained it again above.

We are justified through faith alone, not by works (this is why I discuss works later).
We are justified by grace alone, not by merit or that we've earned our way to heaven (even in part!).
This grace is achieved by Christ's death alone.

These are all different questions. Therefore we can rightfully say they are all alone versus something else.

Jesus + works weakens Christ's death for us.

Arkady wrote: »

Why are we called to do it, if its not required?

We belong to Christ now, therefore we live for Him. Love isn't given out of compulsion. We freely love and serve Jesus because we've been saved by Him. We have new access to God the Father because Jesus has made the way for us. God the Holy Spirit works in us to make us perfect on the last day. This is sanctification, and I agree that we participate by human effort in sanctification, it isn't passive. It is because of Jesus' death and resurrection that we die to ourselves and our sin and rise with Christ. Why would we want to go back to the old life? We participate very clearly in our sanctification, in our becoming more like Jesus. But this participation doesn't contribute to our justification, the free gift of grace to all who believe by Jesus' death.

Arkady wrote: »

"Luther wrote" ? that's some sola scriptura you have now. A man with obvious deep physiological issues and a deep hatred of others, especially the Jewish people, thought he'd invented his own get out card for not doing God's will, and happily used for German politics by a German princes in their political wars with France, unlike the peaceful saints of God down through the centuries, who stood up for Christianity inside the Church, and not by playing Judas to Christianity and pied piper encouraging countless denominations, false teachings, wars and death across western Europe, and in Ireland.

Reading commentaries and listening to sermons are helpful. The sola scriptura mindset simply tests these texts to see if they are expositing the Bible or adding to it. If Luther's explanation of Galatians helps me to understand the Bible better, then it isn't in violation of the principle of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura simply presents that the Bible is sufficient for salvation, and that nothing outside of it is required to be believed by anyone for salvation.

I don't hate you. I simply disagree with you. The Christian should earnestly love one another. I long to help you understand my position and I hope to understand yours with God's help. We should be giving grace to one another. That's what I long for. Us to come to a better knowledge of God's Son Jesus. What's your aim in posting?

As for Luther, he did try to reform the church from within. Why do you think he appeared at the Diet of Worms in 1521? Why do you think Protestants wanted to be at the Council of Trent? The truth was that the Papacy banned them from coming to reform the church.

Wikipedia wrote:

It is true that the emperor intended it to be a strictly general or truly ecumenical council, at which the Protestants should have a fair hearing. He secured, during the council's second period, 1551–53, an invitation, twice given, to the Protestants to be present and the council issued a letter of safe conduct (thirteenth session) and offered them the right of discussion, but denied them a vote. Melanchthon and Johannes Brenz, with some other German Lutherans, actually started in 1552 on the journey to Trento. Brenz offered a confession and Melanchthon, who got no farther than Nuremberg, took with him the Confessio Saxonica. But the refusal to give the Protestants the right to vote and the consternation produced by the success of Maurice in his campaign against Charles V in 1552 effectually put an end to Protestant cooperation.

Arkady wrote: »

No faith this time, what happened sola fide ? Yet again your false sums don't add up.

I've explained this above, and Nick has explained it at length.

Arkady wrote: »

[/B]I notice you've left out Faith yet again. Again repeating the same sectarian strawman, find me a single Christian denomination that claims works alone do. I've asked you that every time, and every time you have ignored it and then duck back in to try the same failedstrawman.

Please answer my question, or explain how it is a strawman? The reason I bring up works is because that is what sola fide is compared against.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus and in His life giving resurrection,
solodeogloria

Arkady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

If it is a strawman, please help me understand you better. I want to do that.

By saying works contribute to salvation. I'm not saying works alone save people in the post-Trent thinking. It is that grace is achieved by participating in the Sacraments. I.E - Grace has already been achieved, it's just that you need to work to get it. This is Jesus + works = salvation rather than Jesus Christ alone achieves grace by His death which is received by faith alone. Nick has already explained how the three work together and how we can say they are alone.

I have but you continually revert to the strawman of pretending your arguing against works alone instead of Faith combined with doing the will of God, and then jump to claiming that faith alone doesn't mean faith alone when your position becomes contradictory and untenable. Nick left when his contradictions were pointed out and he ran out of ad hominems and still hasn't replied to the questions he was asked.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Sola scriptura simply presents that the Bible is sufficient for salvation, and that nothing outside of it is required to be believed by anyone for salvation.

And yet your left reverting to "what Luther wrote" and continually having to refer to him and what he said instead of scripture. So much for sola scriptura.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't hate you. I simply disagree with you. The Christian should earnestly love one another. I long to help you understand my position and I hope to understand yours with God's help. We should be giving grace to one another. That's what I long for. Us to come to a better knowledge of God's Son Jesus. What's your aim in posting?

It's nothing to do with me, its about discussing how the five solas are clearly self contradictory, it is interesting that both Nick and yourself both continually tried to revert to making it about the poster instead of the posts when your contradictory claims are pointed out.