{"id":1635,"date":"2017-02-02T06:46:41","date_gmt":"2017-02-02T06:46:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mathwise.net\/?p=1635"},"modified":"2017-02-02T06:46:41","modified_gmt":"2017-02-02T06:46:41","slug":"the-solas-of-the-reformation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/mathwise.net\/?p=1635","title":{"rendered":"THE \u2018\u2018SOLAS\u2019\u2019 OF THE REFORMATION"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/strong>THE \u2018\u2018SOLAS\u2019\u2019 OF THE REFORMATION<\/p>\n

Sola Scriptura<\/strong>\u00a0– Scripture Alone
\nSolus Christus<\/strong>\u00a0– Christ Alone
\nSola Gratia<\/strong>\u00a0– Grace Alone
\nSola Fide<\/strong>\u00a0– Faith Alone
\nSoli Deo Gloria<\/strong>\u00a0– The Glory of God Alone<\/p>\n

Unwarranted confidence in human ability is a product of fallen human nature … God’s grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace. We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God’s wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life. We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature.\u00a0– Cambridge Declaration<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Reformation\u2019s theological basis, though deep, was simple, resting<\/p>\n

on a handful of fundamental principles.\u00a0 Our salvation is entirely by God\u2019s<\/p>\n

grace and not of our own doing. We receive that grace, and are justified,<\/p>\n

through faith, and not by any works we do.\u00a0 These principles were set forth in<\/p>\n

Article IV of the Augsburg Confession.<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

To these material principles of the<\/p>\n

Reformation is added the formal principle, stated in the Formula of Concord,<\/p>\n

that the sole norm and rule of doctrine is the Holy Scripture.\u00a0\u00a0 These three<\/p>\n

principles are referred to as the \u2018\u2018three solas\u2019\u2019——by grace alone, through faith<\/p>\n

alone, learned from Scripture alone. Some writers,\u00a0 especially among the<\/p>\n

Reformed, would add two other \u2018\u2018solas\u2019\u2019——for the sake of Christ alone, and to<\/p>\n

God alone the glory.<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

Lutherans would not disagree with them as to that,<\/p>\n

though those two \u2018\u2018solas\u2019\u2019 are actually\u00a0 solo propter Christum and\u00a0 soli Deo<\/p>\n

gloria.<\/p>\n

Nothing could be more important to each of us than knowing whether we<\/p>\n

are saved, whether we are destined for eternal life with God.\u00a0\u00a0 There has been a<\/p>\n

certain tension in Christian doctrine from the very beginning.\u00a0 Christians agree<\/p>\n

that the saved have eternal life with God; \u201cFor God so loved the world that he<\/p>\n

gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish<\/p>\n

but have everlasting life\u201d<\/p>\n

3<\/p>\n

; \u201cIn my Father\u2019s house are many mansions; if it we not<\/p>\n

so, I would have told you.\u00a0 I go to prepare a place for you.\u00a0 And if I go and 2<\/p>\n

prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that<\/p>\n

where I am, there ye may be also.\u201d<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

All Christians likewise agree that our<\/p>\n

salvation comes by God\u2019s grace.\u00a0 \u201cFor all have sinned and fall short of the glory<\/p>\n

of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in<\/p>\n

Christ Jesus.\u201d<\/p>\n

5<\/p>\n

This is the sola gratia, not on its face a controversial teaching.<\/p>\n

How do we get this grace?\u00a0 The Scripture itself provides on its face a<\/p>\n

couple of answers, which, if they are taken alone and not together as a whole,<\/p>\n

could appear to conflict, and it is at this point that the Reformation parts ways<\/p>\n

with Rome.\u00a0 The Roman Catholic church has, for about 800 years, told us that<\/p>\n

there are certain works necessary on our part both before and after justification.<\/p>\n

Before justification there is a preparation necessary, they say.\u00a0 These include, in<\/p>\n

addition to the faith\u00a0 fear of Divine justice; hope in the mercy of God for the sake<\/p>\n

of the merits of Christ; the beginning of the love of God; hate and detestation of<\/p>\n

sin; and the purpose of receiving Baptism and of beginning a new life.<\/p>\n

6<\/p>\n

These<\/p>\n

merits are sometimes referred to as meritum congrui.<\/p>\n

With justifying grace, the Romans teach, the soul is transformed, and the<\/p>\n

Christian becomes a partaker of the Divine nature, receiving an infusion of, and<\/p>\n

developing a habit of, or an aptitude for, charity.<\/p>\n

7<\/p>\n

The justified man, so<\/p>\n

transformed, becomes more like God, being in a state of grace, and does good<\/p>\n

works, sometimes called\u00a0 meritum condigni.<\/p>\n

8<\/p>\n

These works, in turn, give man a<\/p>\n

claim to a supernatural reward, and that reward is eternal life and \u201can increase of<\/p>\n

heavenly glory\u201d.<\/p>\n

9<\/p>\n

As support for this teaching, the Romans cite St. Paul:\u00a0 \u201c(God) 3<\/p>\n

will render to every man according to his deeds.\u201d<\/p>\n

10<\/p>\n

Ott quotes as an express<\/p>\n

statement of the meritum condigni:\u00a0 \u201cthe crown of justice which the Lord, the just<\/p>\n

judge, will render\u2026\u201d.<\/p>\n

11<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This exegesis is questionable, once one looks at it in context.\u00a0 Paul is here<\/p>\n

not talking about good works that he has done, for\u00a0 which he is to receive a<\/p>\n

reward.\u00a0 Rather, he is talking about remaining in the faith, and the reward is to<\/p>\n

those who are in the faith.\u00a0 Here is the passage in context:\u00a0 \u201cFor I am now ready<\/p>\n

to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.\u00a0 I have fought a good<\/p>\n

fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; Henceforth there is laid up<\/p>\n

for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give<\/p>\n

me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his<\/p>\n

appearing.\u201d<\/p>\n

12<\/p>\n

The whole passage shows that it is not any particular good work,<\/p>\n

but simply remaining in the faith, that brings this crown of righteousness.<\/p>\n

The Roman position is frequently supported by reference to several<\/p>\n

statements in the Epistle of St. James.\u00a0 James 1:12 is cited by Ott for the<\/p>\n

proposition that eternal life is the reward for good works<\/p>\n

13<\/p>\n

and James 2:17, 24 for<\/p>\n

the more sweeping pronouncement that justification is by works as well as by<\/p>\n

faith.<\/p>\n

14<\/p>\n

More recent Roman dogmatic statements have backed\u00a0 away from the<\/p>\n

meritum congrui.\u00a0 The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us:\u00a0 \u201cSince the<\/p>\n

initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of 4<\/p>\n

forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of\u00a0 conversion.\u201d (emphasis in<\/p>\n

original)<\/p>\n

15<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the\u00a0 meritum condigni\u00a0 is still very much part of<\/p>\n

Roman teaching:\u00a0 \u201cMoved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for<\/p>\n

ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase<\/p>\n

of charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.\u201d (emphasis in original)<\/p>\n

16<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Obviously, fairness requires that we not task Rome with a doctrine that it has<\/p>\n

abandoned; what it still teaches remains part of the discussion.\u00a0 To understand<\/p>\n

the Lutheran and Reformed arguments in this regard, it is necessary to include<\/p>\n

Rome\u2019s teachings of meritum congrui as well as meritum condigni.<\/p>\n

We are talking here about a change in Rome\u2019s teachings that has occurred<\/p>\n

just in the last few decades\u2014in church history, something that might as well be<\/p>\n

yesterday.\u00a0 The meritum congrui was still in Ott\u2019s dogmatics in 1960.\u00a0 Since then<\/p>\n

there have been the Second Vatican Council, the accession to the Papacy of John<\/p>\n

Paul II and the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification\u00a0 of the Pope and the<\/p>\n

Lutheran World Federation.\u00a0 It is certainly relevant to confessional Lutherans\u2019<\/p>\n

criticism of that declaration17<\/p>\n

that the edition of the catechism that came out<\/p>\n

since the declaration still states that we attain eternal life with our own merits.<\/p>\n

The Romans concede freely that this leaves us without any assurance of<\/p>\n

salvation, but that we must doubt to the end of our days whether we have<\/p>\n

eternal life.\u00a0 Ott writes, \u201cA just man merits for himself through each good work<\/p>\n

an increase of sanctifying grace, eternal life (if he dies in a state of grace) and an<\/p>\n

increase of heavenly glory\u2026As grace is the preliminary stage of glory, and as 5<\/p>\n

glory is proportional to good works, the measure of grace must also increase<\/p>\n

with good works.\u201d<\/p>\n

18<\/p>\n

Since \u201cthe grace by which we are justified may be lost, and<\/p>\n

is lost by every grievous sin\u201d, the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy Ghost are<\/p>\n

lost every time we slip.<\/p>\n

But the entire works-based theory of justification is itself a change from<\/p>\n

Rome\u2019s own former teachings.\u00a0 Such had not always been the Catholic<\/p>\n

understanding of justification.\u00a0 While in Reformation theology, by the principle<\/p>\n

of sola Scriptura, the writings of early church fathers cannot be themselves the<\/p>\n

source of doctrine, they certainly are a witness to what the Church has taught at<\/p>\n

other times, how the Scripture has been understood, and where they in fact are<\/p>\n

consonant with Scripture they are good and valuable.<\/p>\n

19<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

When one takes the Roman teaching that the authority of Scripture also<\/p>\n

applies to the writings of those in apostolic succession as they are received into<\/p>\n

the tradition of the Church,<\/p>\n

20<\/p>\n

these writings have from a Roman perspective even<\/p>\n

more weight.\u00a0 So looking at some earlier Church sources is helpful whether one<\/p>\n

begins from a Protestant or a Roman dogmatic structure.\u00a0 (I refer throughout this<\/p>\n

article to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church simply as \u201cRoman\u201d so as<\/p>\n

not to imply that Lutheran or Reformed theology is not catholic, as defined by<\/p>\n

the three historic creeds.)<\/p>\n

St. Augustine writes, \u201cMen are not saved by good works, nor by the free<\/p>\n

determination of their own will, but by the grace of God through faith.\u201d<\/p>\n

21<\/p>\n

Here 6<\/p>\n

is the sola fide, from the pen of one of the greatest Catholic fathers.\u00a0 He continues,<\/p>\n

\u201cBut this part of the human race to which God has promised pardon and a share<\/p>\n

in His eternal kingdom, can they be restored through the merit of their own<\/p>\n

works?\u201d<\/p>\n

22<\/p>\n

He adds later that sinful man needs a mediator, which is Jesus<\/p>\n

Christ<\/p>\n

23<\/p>\n

.\u00a0 Further, he writes that the pardon given for the sake of Christ\u2019s<\/p>\n

atonement extends to the entire life of the saints, which is not free of sin, pointing<\/p>\n

to St. John\u2019s admonition:\u00a0 \u201cIf we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves<\/p>\n

and the truth is not in us.\u201d24<\/p>\n

While St. Augustine does refer to works after<\/p>\n

conversion as assisting in salvation25<\/p>\n

, this is in the context of works as the marks<\/p>\n

of a live faith.<\/p>\n

26<\/p>\n

Further, while it is certainly true that satisfaction must be made for sin27<\/p>\n

, it<\/p>\n

was long recognized that in fact this satisfaction has been made for us vicariously<\/p>\n

by Christ.\u00a0 St. Anselm of Canterbury writes:<\/p>\n

\u2026the father was unwilling for the human race to be restored<\/p>\n

unless man performed a great act, equal to the Son\u2019s death.\u00a0 Since<\/p>\n

reason did not demand what another could not do, the Son says<\/p>\n

that the Father wills his death, while he himself prefers to suffer<\/p>\n

death rather than leave the human race unsaved.\u00a0 It is as though he<\/p>\n

were to say:\u00a0 \u201cSince thou dost not will that the reconciliation of the<\/p>\n

world should be brought about in any other way, I say that in this<\/p>\n

sense, thou willest my death.\u00a0 Therefore, let this thy will be done;<\/p>\n

that is, let my death take place, that the world may be reconciled to 7<\/p>\n

thee.\u201d<\/p>\n

28<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

St. Anselm puts great emphasis on the redemptive act of Christ:<\/p>\n

This is just what puzzles them most, when we call this<\/p>\n

deliverance \u201credemption\u201d.\u00a0 In what captivity, they ask us, in what<\/p>\n

prison or in whose power were you held, from which God could<\/p>\n

not deliver you, without redeeming you by so many labors and in<\/p>\n

the end by his own blood?\u00a0 Perhaps we will reply:\u00a0 He redeemed us<\/p>\n

from sins and from his own wrath and from hell and\u00a0 from the<\/p>\n

power of the devil, whom he came himself to conquer for us, since<\/p>\n

we could not do it for ourselves.<\/p>\n

29<\/p>\n

It is not surprising that perhaps the strongest echo of St. Anselm of<\/p>\n

Canterbury would be in the following prayer written by another archbishop of<\/p>\n

Canterbury almost 500 years later, Thomas Cranmer:\u00a0 \u201cAll glory be to thee,<\/p>\n

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst<\/p>\n

give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our<\/p>\n

redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full,<\/p>\n

perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole<\/p>\n

world.\u201d<\/p>\n

30<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rome, while honoring and certainly never repudiating St. Anselm, has not<\/p>\n

given his theology anything like the credit it is due.\u00a0 The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/p>\n

ascribes this largely to the form of his writing and the turning of Roman theology 8<\/p>\n

soon after he had written to the Aristotelian approach of St. Thomas Aquinas and<\/p>\n

others.<\/p>\n

31<\/p>\n

Perhaps that is how it was passed up; but the substance of his writing<\/p>\n

on this point is honored in the omission from the canons of the council of Trent,<\/p>\n

etc..\u00a0 Far more plausible is that Rome did not want to show that the first of the<\/p>\n

great Scholastics believed in sola fide.<\/p>\n

The Lutheran confessors tell us that St. Bernard of Clairvaux changed his<\/p>\n

view of justification right at the end of his life, quoting him as writing:\u00a0 \u201cThere is<\/p>\n

need that you must first believe that you cannot have forgiveness of sin except<\/p>\n

by the grace of God; next that thereafter you cannot have and do any good work,<\/p>\n

unless God grants it to you; lastly that you cannot earn eternal life with your<\/p>\n

works, though it is not given to you without merit\u201d32<\/p>\n

and exclaiming, as he<\/p>\n

looked back on a life of all manner of work for the church, \u201cPerdite vixi!\u00a0 I have<\/p>\n

lived a sinful life!\u201d<\/p>\n

33<\/p>\n

The Reformation at least initially made this the central article of its protest<\/p>\n

against Rome.\u00a0 Luther wrote:<\/p>\n

The first and chief article is this.<\/p>\n

That Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins, as was<\/p>\n

raised again for our justification, Rom. 4,25;<\/p>\n

And He alone is the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of<\/p>\n

the world, John\u00a0 1, 25; and God has laid upon Him the iniquities of us all,<\/p>\n

Is. 53,6. 9<\/p>\n

Likewise: All have sinned and are justified without merit by His<\/p>\n

grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom.<\/p>\n

3,23 f.<\/p>\n

Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be<\/p>\n

otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law or merit, it is<\/p>\n

clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us, as St. Paul says,<\/p>\n

Rom. 3,28:\u00a0 For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the<\/p>\n

deeds of the Law. Likewise v. 26: That He might be just, and the Justifier<\/p>\n

of him which believeth in Christ.<\/p>\n

Of this article nothing can be yielded or surrendered, even<\/p>\n

though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink<\/p>\n

to ruin\u2026And upon this article all things depend which we teach<\/p>\n

and practise in opposition to the Pope, the devil and the whole<\/p>\n

world.<\/p>\n

34<\/p>\n

(Emphasis added by editors of edition used; form\u00a0 of<\/p>\n

Scripture cites in original.)<\/p>\n

Luther and Melanchthon (principal author of the Augsburg Confessions)<\/p>\n

are in accord with St. Anselm\u2019s view in seeing the righteousness of the faithful<\/p>\n

not as some work that they do either before or after conversion, but as an<\/p>\n

essentially judicial act by God, in which Christ\u2019s\u00a0 satisfaction operates as a<\/p>\n

redemption, through which the righteousness of Christ is then imputed to us and<\/p>\n

we are declared righteous. Luther emphasized the point in his translation of the 10<\/p>\n

Bible by translating Rom. 3:28 \u201callein durch den Glauben\u201d\u2014by faith alone, \u201calone\u201d<\/p>\n

being an insertion but one that does not undermine, but reinforces, the text.<\/p>\n

Rome rejects this understanding35<\/p>\n

notwithstanding the above-cited<\/p>\n

authority of some of their own greatest theologians and saints.\u00a0 The Council of<\/p>\n

Trent went so far as to say, \u201cIf anyone says that the ungodly is justified by faith<\/p>\n

alone in such a way that he understands that nothing else is required which<\/p>\n

cooperates toward obtaining the grace of justification and that it is in no way<\/p>\n

necessary for him to be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will,<\/p>\n

let him be anathema.<\/p>\n

36\u2026If anyone says that a man is justified either solely by the<\/p>\n

imputation of Christ\u2019s righteousness or solely by the remission of sins, to the<\/p>\n

exclusion of the grace and charity which is poured out into their hearts by the<\/p>\n

Holy Spirit and stays with them, or also that the grace by which we are justified<\/p>\n

is only the favor of God, let him be anathema.\u201d<\/p>\n

37<\/p>\n

So says Rome, but what does<\/p>\n

Scripture say about the respective role of faith and works in our justification?<\/p>\n

Again, as will be examined more closely below, Scripture is the sole norm<\/p>\n

and rule of doctrine.\u00a0 All other authorities are normed by Scripture.<\/p>\n

38<\/p>\n

Still, the<\/p>\n

Romans have adduced some Scripture in apparent support of their position.<\/p>\n

How are we to understand what we are reading?\u00a0 We apply some basic rules of<\/p>\n

understanding Scripture.<\/p>\n

The most basic rule is that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture.,<\/p>\n

which is how Christ and the Apostles explained Scripture.<\/p>\n

39<\/p>\n

Passages have to be 11<\/p>\n

seen and understood in their context.<\/p>\n

40<\/p>\n

Ott\u2019s reference to a portion of 2 Tim. 4:8<\/p>\n

without giving the whole verse or preceding verses is an example of the dangers<\/p>\n

of misinterpretation that inhere if something is lifted out of its proper context;<\/p>\n

they have to be interpreted with each other.\u00a0 They have a single Author,<\/p>\n

41<\/p>\n

and a<\/p>\n

single meaning, which is not to be any other meaning than that which the Holy<\/p>\n

Spirit intended.<\/p>\n

42<\/p>\n

It \u201calone can shed light on those verses which appear to<\/p>\n

interpreters dark or difficult.\u201d<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

So we cannot read Scripture schizophrenically; there can ultimately be no<\/p>\n

conflict in the apparent conflict between the Scriptural authorities cited above.<\/p>\n

Rome would make the works that do not justify us refer only to works of<\/p>\n

ceremonial Jewish law44<\/p>\n

or to those done before conversion.<\/p>\n

45<\/p>\n

But that does not<\/p>\n

work, and the key is in the seemingly innocuous verse that tells us that<\/p>\n

\u201cAbraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.\u201d<\/p>\n

46<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

That key will open only one reading of Rom. 3:, Eph. 2:8,9 and James 2.<\/p>\n

We see that it is not that Abram had gone from Ur to Haran to Canaan, nor that<\/p>\n

he proceeded to make a baby\u2014after all, efforts to anticipate God\u2019s promise,<\/p>\n

though Abraham did beget a son, Ishmael, that was not the promised son.<\/p>\n

47<\/p>\n

It is<\/p>\n

that he trusted God.<\/p>\n

48<\/p>\n

Again, Abraham\u2019s trust in God directs us back to another<\/p>\n

passage\u2014his preparing to sacrifice Isaac.\u00a0 God did not actually want Abraham to<\/p>\n

sacrifice Isaac; He ultimately provided the sheep to be sacrificed.\u00a0 But Abraham<\/p>\n

believed God\u2019s promises, that through this child, God would make Abraham the<\/p>\n

father of many nations. God would not and did not betray his promise.<\/p>\n

4912<\/p>\n

Therefore, when Sts. Paul and James each speak of Abraham and his being<\/p>\n

counted righteous, both actually citing the same verse, they cannot mean<\/p>\n

different things.\u00a0 They must mean the same thing.\u00a0 And that same thing is simply<\/p>\n

this:\u00a0 Faith, if it is genuine, will show itself in works. Those works are the marks<\/p>\n

of a live faith; a faith that will not produce works is not really faith at all.<\/p>\n

50<\/p>\n

Faith<\/p>\n

is not simply knowing and believing the story.\u00a0 The devil himself knows and<\/p>\n

believes the story.\u00a0 Faith is an abiding confidence in God.\u00a0 With such faith, \u201cthe<\/p>\n

Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed with new affections, so as to be able<\/p>\n

to do good works.\u201d51<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Those works are not done because they justify. Justification is by that<\/p>\n

point accomplished.\u00a0 But the regenerate man seeks to do the will of God; \u201che that<\/p>\n

knows that he has a Father gracious to him through Christ, truly knows God; he<\/p>\n

knows also that God cares for him\u201d and is reconciled to God.\u00a0 The good works<\/p>\n

follow, they do not cause, justification, which is and remains by faith alone\u2014sola<\/p>\n

fide.<\/p>\n

52<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There is no question that the principle of\u00a0 Sola Scriptura, \u2018\u2018Only<\/p>\n

Scripture\u2019\u2019, as the source of our doctrine, lies at the very heart of the<\/p>\n

Reformation, and arguably of Christianity itself.\u00a0\u00a0 Christ Himself, when<\/p>\n

questioned as to his authenticity, responded, \u2018\u2018Search the scriptures; for in<\/p>\n

them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n

53<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

St. John asserts the Scriptures as containing the saving faith: \u2018\u2018But these are<\/p>\n

written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and 13<\/p>\n

that believing ye might have life through his name.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n

54<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

When, in the early apostolic era, the Bereans wished to be sure that<\/p>\n

what they heard from Paul and other speakers was true, St. Luke tells us<\/p>\n

with approval that they \u2018\u2018searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things<\/p>\n

were so.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n

55<\/p>\n

St. Paul, warning St. Timothy of the coming obstacles to his<\/p>\n

teaching, urges him to continue in what he has learned, and proceeds to<\/p>\n

define that as the Scriptures, inspired of God and\u00a0 \u2018\u2018profitable for doctrine\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n

56<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In his epistle to the Galatians, he warns against adding or changing<\/p>\n

anything.<\/p>\n

57<\/p>\n

The principle of Sola Scriptura is upheld by the very church fathers to<\/p>\n

whom opponents of the principle wish to refer for doctrine, including<\/p>\n

Irenaeus,<\/p>\n

58<\/p>\n

St. John Chrysostom<\/p>\n

59<\/p>\n

, and St. Augustine.<\/p>\n

60<\/p>\n

Like sola gratia and<\/p>\n

sola fide, it was not a new conception at the time of the Reformation.<\/p>\n

Luther, in his response to the charges at Worms, relied on Scripture<\/p>\n

and demanded scriptural refutation,\u00a0 noting that popes and councils had<\/p>\n

erred and contradicted each other.<\/p>\n

61<\/p>\n

His chief work on this doctrine is \u2018\u2018On<\/p>\n

the Church and the Councils\u2019\u2019.\u00a0 He quotes St. Augustine\u2019s injunction to<\/p>\n

believe none of the fathers without Scripture on his side.\u00a0 He writes further:<\/p>\n

St. Bernard declares that he learned his wisdom from the<\/p>\n

trees, such as oaks and pines, which were his teachers; that is, 14<\/p>\n

he conceived his ideas from Scripture and pondered them under<\/p>\n

the trees. He adds that he regards the holy fathers highly, but<\/p>\n

does not heed all their sayings, explaining why in the following<\/p>\n

parable: he would rather drink from the spring itself than from<\/p>\n

the brook, as do all men, who once they have a chance to drink<\/p>\n

from the spring forget about the brook, unless they use the<\/p>\n

brook to lead them to the spring. Thus Scripture, too, must<\/p>\n

remain master and judge, for when we follow the brooks too far,<\/p>\n

they lead us too far away from the spring, and lose both their<\/p>\n

taste and nourishment, until they lose themselves in the salty<\/p>\n

sea, as happened under the papacy.<\/p>\n

62<\/p>\n

In \u2018\u2018On the Councils and the Church\u2019\u2019, the entire Reformation argument<\/p>\n

for sola Scriptura is set forth.\u00a0 Councils disagreed with each other.\u00a0 Eminent<\/p>\n

and revered early Church fathers disagreed, for example on whether one who<\/p>\n

had been baptized by heretics without the formulation of Matt. 28 had to be<\/p>\n

baptized.<\/p>\n

63<\/p>\n

Perhaps the greatest contradiction of councils is that between the<\/p>\n

Second Council of Orange and the Council of Trent.\u00a0 The former affirmed<\/p>\n

Augustine\u2019s teaching of\u00a0 sola fide against both Pelagius\u2019s assertion that we<\/p>\n

could of our own free will achieve salvation by our own deeds and Vincent of<\/p>\n

Lerins\u2019s Semi-Pelagianism, which claimed that we had to cooperate in our<\/p>\n

salvation, though acknowledging that God\u2019s grace was indeed necessary.<\/p>\n

6415<\/p>\n

Luther rejects the idea that a council can establish an article of faith, saying<\/p>\n

only the Holy Spirit Himself could do that.<\/p>\n

65<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The question sometimes raised is whether Lutherans, with our Book of<\/p>\n

Concord, have simply established a new tradition to form an independent<\/p>\n

source of doctrine.\u00a0 Some Roman Catholics accuse Lutheranism of that.<\/p>\n

66<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There is, however, a radical difference between Roman or Eastern tradition<\/p>\n

and the Lutheran Confessions.\u00a0 There is a host of Roman teachings for which<\/p>\n

either no authority or dubious authority can be found in Scripture.\u00a0 Mary\u2019s<\/p>\n

Immaculate Conception; her Assumption, and her perpetual virginity are<\/p>\n

doctrines of the Roman Church.\u00a0 There is no Scripture to support them, but<\/p>\n

only tradition of indeterminate origin.\u00a0 In the case of the Assumption, it was<\/p>\n

not even doctrine of the Roman Church until the 20<\/p>\n

th<\/p>\n

century.\u00a0 Their own<\/p>\n

encyclopedia attempts to prove that this is ancient doctrine, incredibly, by<\/p>\n

pointing to the late fourth century writer Epiphanius, who wrote that he<\/p>\n

knew nothing about it!<\/p>\n

67<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the same way, the Pope as the successor of Peter, and through<\/p>\n

Peter, the head of the whole Church of Christ, is based entirely on a<\/p>\n

thoroughly discreditable reading of Matthew 16 as making Peter the<\/p>\n

foundation of the Church, an interpretation that, in fact, the early Church<\/p>\n

fathers also rejected, saying that the rock on which the Church is founded is 16<\/p>\n

Christ Himself, and Peter\u2019s confession of Jesus as the Christ.\u00a0 The Church is<\/p>\n

not built on the petros of Peter\u2019s person, but on the petra of his confession.<\/p>\n

The idea of the Pope as successor to Peter has its origin in Eusebius\u2019s<\/p>\n

statement that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.<\/p>\n

68<\/p>\n

Eusebius, however, was<\/p>\n

attributing no particular authority to that office\u00a0 by reason of such an<\/p>\n

illustrious first holder.\u00a0 Even if Eusebius is right, which is questionable for<\/p>\n

any number of reasons, that proves nothing.\u00a0 Instead, it turns out that the<\/p>\n

idea of the successor of Peter as \u2018\u2018supreme pope and vicar of Christ\u2019\u2019 has its<\/p>\n

origin in the Donation of Constantine, a forged 8<\/p>\n

th<\/p>\n

century instrument.<\/p>\n

69<\/p>\n

There is only one comparable item in the Lutheran Confessions, which<\/p>\n

are otherwise entirely an exposition of Scripture.\u00a0 Selnecker\u2019s insertion of the<\/p>\n

word \u2018\u2018sempervirgine\u2019\u2019 into his Latin translation of Part I of the Smalcald<\/p>\n

Articles is the introduction of something utterly out of character with the<\/p>\n

Book of Concord.\u00a0 The belief in Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity is not necessarily<\/p>\n

wrong or impermissible, but it is something for which there is no Scriptural<\/p>\n

warrant.\u00a0 In addition to being a deviation from the rule of sola scriptura, it is<\/p>\n

also bad translation practice. This was a translation of Luther\u2019s text done 30<\/p>\n

years after Luther\u2019s death, inserting a word Luther had not used.\u00a0 By<\/p>\n

comparison, Jonas, when his German translation of the Apology included<\/p>\n

material not in Melanchthon\u2019s original, he consulted with Melanchthon, who<\/p>\n

agreed with those additions.<\/p>\n

7017<\/p>\n

The Confessions are not an addition to Scripture, in the sense of the<\/p>\n

Roman tradition.\u00a0 There is no claim of some unwritten apostolic tradition<\/p>\n

preserved within the Church or of a teaching authority of the Church which<\/p>\n

may propound doctrines.<\/p>\n

71<\/p>\n

Instead, the confessions set forth as a given that<\/p>\n

there is only one rule and norm of doctrine, and that is Scripture.\u00a0 The<\/p>\n

authority of Scripture is, in Robert Preus\u2019s words, absolute and final.<\/p>\n

72<\/p>\n

That<\/p>\n

is why they cite Scripture hundreds, if not thousands, of times.<\/p>\n

73<\/p>\n

What the Confessions do accomplish is a systematization of Scriptural<\/p>\n

doctrine.\u00a0 All of the central doctrines of Scripture are presented in them<\/p>\n

unaltered.\u00a0 The Confessions are confessed \u2018\u2018not because it was composed by<\/p>\n

our theologians, but because it has been taken from God\u2019s Word and is<\/p>\n

founded firmly and well therein\u2026.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n

74<\/p>\n

. That is a direct disclaimer of having<\/p>\n

any kind of magisterial authority, of having the Holy Spirit in the treasure of<\/p>\n

the heart of Luther, Chemnitz or any other Lutheran Confessor.<\/p>\n

The Church has assembled confessional statements from the very<\/p>\n

beginning.\u00a0 The Creeds are themselves brief confessional statements.\u00a0 They<\/p>\n

were formulated against the heresies of the fourth and fifth centuries at or as<\/p>\n

a result of the first four great councils of the church.\u00a0 Again, those creeds are<\/p>\n

not confessed because four great councils produced\u00a0 them, or because our<\/p>\n

theologians produced them, but because they correctly state the teaching of<\/p>\n

Scripture.<\/p>\n

75<\/p>\n

Creeds and confessions that simply summarize Scripture are not 18<\/p>\n

setting themselves up as independent authorities.\u00a0\u00a0 The Church, in its<\/p>\n

ministerial role, setting forth for its people that which Scripture says.\u00a0 The<\/p>\n

principle of\u00a0 sola Scriptura\u00a0 is upheld with confessions that are themselves<\/p>\n

Scriptural.<\/p>\n

The \u2018\u2018solas\u2019\u2019 are valuable to the Church.\u00a0 Kept in mind, they keep those<\/p>\n

who would uphold the Reformation from drifting into the errors that<\/p>\n

prompted the Reformation in the first place.\u00a0 Abandoned, they lead to<\/p>\n

Romanizing, or even worse, into Pentecostal enthusiasm in which doctrine<\/p>\n

moves this way and that with the personal feelings of each Christian, or into<\/p>\n

existentialist maunderings that would deprive the Word itself of its authority<\/p>\n

in our eyes.\u00a0 Through the \u2018\u2018solas\u2019\u2019, we can remain on the right road, faithful to<\/p>\n

the Word and faithful to the Reformation of the Church.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0THE \u2018\u2018SOLAS\u2019\u2019 OF THE REFORMATION Sola Scriptura\u00a0– Scripture Alone Solus Christus\u00a0– Christ Alone Sola Gratia\u00a0– Grace Alone Sola Fide\u00a0– Faith Alone Soli Deo Gloria\u00a0– The Glory of God Alone Unwarranted confidence in human ability is a product of fallen human nature … God’s grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient … Continue reading THE \u2018\u2018SOLAS\u2019\u2019 OF THE REFORMATION<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1635","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/mathwise.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1635","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/mathwise.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/mathwise.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mathwise.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mathwise.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1635"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/mathwise.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1635\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1636,"href":"http:\/\/mathwise.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1635\/revisions\/1636"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/mathwise.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1635"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mathwise.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1635"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mathwise.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1635"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}