Sola Scriptura Revisited

http://effectualgrace.com/2016/10/10/sola-scriptura-five-part-series/ (presentation of a 5 part series by James White posted by John Samson).

(Corrected a misspelling and reposted - original posting 2/3/2017).

SW: In listening to White's recent presentation he does cover many things we've already discussed here on the CathApol Blog - and he freely admits, much of this ground is already covered.  The topic he believes no Catholic apologist has ever defended is the nature of Sacred Tradition.  Karlo Brousard, the apologist White is answering to in the above linked series, says, according to White, that there is a difference in the nature between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Well really, is there?

SW: White likes to point out what sola scriptura is, and more importantly what it is not. He claims that many Protestant apologists get stuck because they attempt to defend something which sola scriptura is not - in other words, a Straw Man. White believes that many a time the non-Catholic apologist allows the Catholic apologist to define what sola scriptura is and they end up debating that instead of what sola scriptura actually is. He lists examples like, "sola scriptura contains all truth, so when we see truth outside of Scripture - sola scriptura is proven false;" and then states, "since Scripture does not tell us the color of St. Matthew's eyes or the menu they had in April of the second year of Jesus' ministry, Scripture is lacking and thus we need Sacred Tradition to fill in the gaps" (I'm paraphrasing a bit there). The problem I have with these statements is that I have NEVER heard or seen a Catholic apologist use those arguments! I've seen White throw them out before as to belittle the Catholic position - but I have never seen said arguments. Now I'm not saying said arguments have never been made - and I would agree with White that many Protestant apologists really don't know what sola scriptura means - which is understandable. There are several variations on the definition of sola scriptura, they even debate among themselves the difference between "sola" and "solo" scriptura!  (Linguistically speaking, the only difference in those Latin words is one is masculine and the other feminine and since "scriptura" is feminine, the "proper" phrase is "sola scriptura" so "solo scriptura" is not only contrary to Scripture, it is contrary to Latin grammar).  That some or even many apologists are confused is not incomprehensible. This is why, in the course of my debates (several have been with White in the past) I don't use other people's definitions - I use White's definition. White's definition is "sola scriptura is the teaching that Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church." He bases that statement on the nature of sola scriptura - that it is "God breathed" (in Greek, "theopneustos") and since nothing else is "God breathed," that Scripture, and Scripture alone, holds the highest spot in authority and teaching for the church. I believe I am accurately representing White here.

SW: Let's take a page from White's book(s) and define Sacred Tradition as to what it is and more importantly, what it is not. Let's start with what it is not.  Sacred Tradition is not expressed in every personal opinion of popes and/or Church councils whether ecumenical or non-ecumenical. White brings out the fact that there is no dogmatic decree on the Canon of Sacred Scripture until the 16th century at the Council of Trent. I agree with him on this point. Then he goes on to point out that though the non-ecumenical councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo, late in the 4th century, named the Canon, that there were even popes after 382 AD which disagreed with the inclusion of "the apocrypha" (not really the best term here, and White knows this - the more proper/accurate term is "deuterocanonical").  382 was the year St. Jerome was commissioned to translate the ancient texts into the Vulgate, but it wasn't completed until 405 AD. This is significant because the Council of Trent refers to Jerome's Vulgate as "the" Canon.

SW: What then IS the nature Sacred Tradition?  Sacred Tradition is the oral teachings of Jesus Christ to the Apostles. It is that which has been believed and taught from the beginning, but was not necessarily written down until there became a need for it to be formally defined. A prime example of this is the Blessed Trinity. You will not find the word "trinity" in Scripture and the closest you will find it being scripturally expressed is in 1 John 5:7-8, which while theologically sound and accurate, is also known as the Johannine Comma and is believed to be a later addition to the text as "the comma" is not found in the earliest of the manuscripts we have of 1 John. The fact is, the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity was not dogmatically defined until the Nicean Council about 300 years after Jesus and the Apostles walked the earth. Several heresies arose in those first 300 years, some denying the Trinity AND using Scripture to support their denials (Arianism being among the greatest of these heresies). Ultimately it would be the sacred authority of the Catholic Church along WITH Scripture which defined the Blessed Trinity and not Scripture Alone. The point is, when it was defined the Church stood on what was the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, and guided by the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, she defined the Blessed Trinity to end the debate/argument among faithful Christians.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/sola-scriptura-series-by-dr-white/ (Ken Temple summary of White's series)

Ken Temple's (KT) additional comments (in purple):

There are a few points that I would have added into the already excellent material.
(1) Dr. White made an excellent point about 2 Thessalonians 2:15, that the verb, “you were taught” is past tense, so it cannot include things like the (2) Bodily Assumption of Mary (1950) or (3) the Immaculate Conception of Mary ( 1854) or (4) the infallibility of the Pope ( 1870) nor certain dogmatic decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – the ones against Protestantism and justification by faith alone.  I would add (5) also Purgatory, which all the elements of it only came together after Gregory the first, bishop of Rome from 590-640 AD.   (6) He made a good point that John Henry Cardinal Newman knew this, that is why he had to come up with his “development of doctrine” theory of the Roman Catholic Church.

SW: Let's take a look at Mr. Temple's points.

1. That 2 Thes. 2:15 uses a past tense verb is not troublesome to the Catholic apologetic.  First off, just because something wasn't in writing at the time does not mean it was not taught and/or believed.
2. In 51-52 AD the Blessed Mother may not have finished the course of her life on earth. From "Scripture Alone" we cannot say for sure when her passing was - but I'm certain no Protestant believes she did not pass.
3. The Immaculate Conception is deduced from Scripture, especially the point of her being named "Full of Grace."  Yes, Protestants argue that the title does not necessarily equate to the Immaculate Conception - but their arguments do not negate the scriptural basis of Catholic teaching. 
4. We must not forget that Scripture also records that both St. Peter alone and the council of bishops (the Apostles being our first bishops) were granted the authority to bind or loose whatsoever they chose to - and said binding not only was bound on Earth, but also in Heaven. Therefore, the infallibility of the Pope (St. Peter's successor) and the Council of Trent (an ecumenical council of bishops) can be validly argued to have infallible authority - are based in Scripture.
5. Likewise, there are several scriptural references which support the doctrine of Purgatory.
6. That doctrine developed cannot be validly equated to the doctrine/teaching not previously existing.  The fact that definitions of doctrine became necessary at various times throughout Christian history is not an argument against the doctrines already existing - in fact, the definitions simply define pre-existing teachings so that the faithful can have certainty in these teachings.  To paraphrase St. Augustine, after Rome has (infallibly) spoken, the cause (for argument) has ended.  (Sermon 131).

KT continues:

KT: 1. I would add something about the early date of 1 Thessalonians, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (51-52 AD) and so the oral traditions include things written earlier in Galatians (49-50 AD), and 
2.. also, it seems certain that the oral traditions that Paul is saying are binding there in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, were all later written out in the rest of the NT books – Romans, Ephesians, 1-2 Corinthians, Colossians, Philippians, John, Acts, Luke, (even by other authors in Hebrews, Matthew, John, Mark, Peter, James and Jude – “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”, (Jude 3), etc.

SW: There is nothing in any of those (later) books which states all oral traditions were included in them!  Mr. Temple's eisegesis is clearly pointed out in this fact. Since he is slinging verses, how about considering 3 John "¹³ I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. ¹⁴ I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face."  St. John, the Apostle who wrote much, did NOT want to put everything in writing! He wanted to wait until he could speak to them, face to face - orally.  Mr. Temple's use of Jude 3 has nothing to do with sola scriptura as Jude is referring to a specific situation of those who have turned against the Lord and are infiltrating the faithful to try and get them to turn away also (so much for once saved, always saved too, but that's a whole different topic) and certainly Temple is not implying that the tiny book of Jude contains ALL which is necessary to be taught and learned for salvation! Is he? Also, that Galations might include things "spoken" of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not say there were not other things passed on by word of mouth and NOT written, such as our example from 3 John 13-14, a much later epistle.
Let us continue...

KT:  Acts 15:19 – the apostle James, the half-brother of Jesus, says, “I judge” – Dr. White made a great point:  “but James, don’t you know “the Vicar of Christ” is seated here right next to you?” The fact that Peter was right there with him, shows there was no such thing as a Pope; and Peter was not the “first Pope.”

SW:  St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, I don't think even our Protestant detractors deny this fact, and as such - he was "responsible" for the Council of Jerusalem, regardless of the fact that the "Vicar of Christ" (a title which comes later) is sitting there with him.  The fact of the matter is that it was St. Peter who stood up and ended the debate!  St. James "judgment" is simply affirmation of what St. Peter already declared!

KT:  3.  also, I would point out that 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is expanding “the sacred Scriptures” of v. 15 from OT to all Scripture; even NT books written later.

SW: I, for one, do not deny the sufficiency or profitablility of Scripture - which is spoken of in 2 Tim. 3:16-17, but sufficiency is not the point of the debate - "sola" is!  That Jim-Bob's Bike Shop can sufficiently supply the cyclist with everything he needs doesn't mean that Billy-Bob's Bike Shop cannot do just as good a job supplying the cyclist.  A claim of sufficiency (satis scriptura) or profitability does not validly answer the challenge the adherent to sola scriptura is presented with.

KT:  4.  Paul already put Gospels on same level as Torah in 1 Timothy 5:18. “Paul is enlarging on the previous reference . . especially by his use of πασα.”  (πασα = pasa = “all”) George Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, p. 448

SW: This is a non-argument in the sola scriptura debate - I am not aware of any Christian who does not put the Gospels on the same level as the Torah. The bigger point here is not just the Gospels, which among Christians were widely accepted as Scripture, but also the Epistles which were also accepted as Scripture - as well as some of the other books which were included in early canons of Scripture, but ultimately rejected as such in the late 4th century (and they are still good reading, just not "on the same level as Torah").

SW: In summary, the best that White, Samson and Temple can come up with is an argument for satis scriptura - which Catholics do not deny! What we, Catholics, do deny is sola scriptura - and what's more is, Scripture itself does not teach sola scriptura! That said, in light of the fact that Scripture itself teaches us that Scripture is NOT the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church in Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18, we have "the other pen" (also an argument White likes to make) so Scripture certainly is NOT alone so far as infallibility is concerned. 

Thus, when a pope speaks ex cathedra (defining something to be part of Sacred Tradition) or an ecumenical council infallibly defines a teaching, this puts Sacred Tradition, not above or below Sacred Scripture, but equal to Sacred Scripture as both are infallible. White can no longer claim that no Catholic apologist has or will defend the nature of Sacred Tradition (and I am not the first to do this).

In JMJ,
Scott Windsor<<<

Gospel of Grace

I had been engaged in a discussion with John Samson from the "Reformation Theology Blog" and he responded to me with a link to an audio-made-into-video, by Dr. John MacArthur:

Hi Scott,


Dr. John Macarthur (sic) shows the massive difference between a true understanding of God saving grace in the gospel, and the so called "gospel" of Rome here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt25xnk6gfM&feature

So here is my response to that:


Quoting MacArthur (and this is a complete transcript of that youtube presentation, along with my interjections and corrections to Dr. MacArthur's errors):

I'm going to give you a little course in Roman Catholic theology, here's how it works.  Do you want to be justified and made right with God?  Here's the (precedence).  God infuses grace into you.  They use the term "infused grace"...God infuses it into you.  It's grace or slash, righteousness, and it's the grace of Christ and the righteousness of Christ and it is dumped into you. 

Well, other than the commonality of the terminology - we're OK so far.

The first dose you ever get is in infant Baptism, that is why infant Baptism is absolutely required, because it is the first dispensation of infused grace.   

Absolutely required?  No, it is not!  If it were, then anyone who was not baptized as an infant could not validly or licitly receive baptism at a later date!  Infant Baptism is practiced because, 1) it has biblical precedence (Acts 16:31-34 and 18:8, 1 Cor. 1:16 mention entire households being baptized); 2) why wait?  Yes, it is the "first dose" of Sanctifying Grace for us - so we do not withhold it from our infants.  My point of objection here is that Dr. MacArthur states it is "absolutely required" and that simply is not true. 

And according to Catholic theology at that point grace is infused into you.  That grace becomes an energy in you moving you toward justification, toward righteousness as you cooperate by good works. 

I can agree, to a point with Dr. MacArthur's interpretation here.  Grace IS infused in us and that Grace IS and energy moving us toward justification and righteousness - but the cooperation of good works is a natural outflow from "saving faith" - for a faith which can save also has works.  Faith without works is dead, and a dead faith cannot save you (James 2).

Every time you go to the Mass, every time you do penance, every time you say your beads, every time you go to Confession, every time you do any of that you get more infused grace.  That's why some Roman Catholics go to church (Mass) seven days a week... because they need lots of infused grace.

Well yes, we DO need lots of infused grace!  Certainly Jesus' Act of Grace was a one-time act - but that act was for all time, not just THAT time.  The more we encounter and embrace His Grace - the less likely we are to fall into mortal sin - that sin which is unto death - because we are more and more united with and to Him.

They operate under fear, that's why they go to Confession. 

We go to Confession because God Himself empowered certain men with the authority to forgive and retain sins (John 20:23).  So, when we sin - we MUST go to one so empowered for outside of these men there is no forgiveness of sins!  This is partially true - for we DO fear God!   We DO fear His Judgment!  We go to Confession when we have stumbled and are in need of forgiveness.

They go to Confession not because they want to tell the priest all their sins, but because they want the infused grace which perpetuates them on the process to righteousness.

YES!  We ALL need "lots of infused grace!"  Clearly we are not made clean and pure, in every way, through Baptism - for we still have a fallen nature, and we still commit sin.  Show me a person who claims they do not sin and I will show you a liar.  We ALL sin and we ALL need to be infused - and reinfused, with Sanctifying Grace.  Dr. MacArthur makes this sound like a bad thing, when in reality - going back again and again to that spring of Grace is the means of Grace which God has provided for His people through the Church which He built.

If, per chance, as you move along the road, you're getting closer and closer, you commit a mortal sin, there's two kinds of sin in Catholic theology; venial sins, which don't count like big ones and mortal sins which are really big. 

Dr. MacArthur needs to take a closer look at 1 John 5:16-17 wherein Scripture itself teaches us that there is a "sin leading to death" (mortal) and a there is a "sin not leading to death" (venial).  The concept of mortal and venial sins is quite scriptural. 

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.  All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death. (1 John 5:16-17 NASB).

As the reader can see above, there ARE two types of sin - one is mortal (leads to death) and the other is venial (does not lead to death).

So that Roman Catholic theology believes this: God justifies only the righteous. In other words, you're never going to be right with God until you've achieved righteousness. My Bible says: "God justifies sinners." And that is the difference. Roman Catholic theology says you'll get justified when you get righteous; the Bible says you'll get justified when you fall on your face and acknowledge you're a sinner.

Just acknowledging you're a sinner does not justify you! The demons of Hell acknowledge/know they are sinners - but that does not justify them! Those in Purgatory have ALREADY been judged "righteous" - but have some manner of impurity left upon them, and thus cannot yet enter Heaven, for nothing impure can enter Heaven (Rev. 21:27). The path to righteousness necessarily includes good works. I actually find it a bit humorous at times to see how Protestants split hairs over this issue.

Anytime you commit a mortal sin you're back to zero again in the process of justification. It is just as if you've had infant Baptism, you go all the way back to ground zero.

Most Catholics don't know these nuances at all, all they know is they are working real hard hoping they can get into Heaven, but I'm giving you the inside stuff.  This is Catholic theology.  Commit a mortal sin and you're back to square one again and you start the process.  Do that when you're 75 years old and you die when you're 76, you got a long time in Purgatory.

Well again, not quite true.  When we commit a mortal sin we are separated from Sanctifying Grace, but we're still Catholics, we still have the "mark" of Baptism upon us and we're still able to go to the Sacrament of Confession and be restored to a state of Sanctifying Grace.   And again, not quite true.  If you commit a mortal sin at 75 - AND DON'T REPENT OF IT - and then die at 76 with this still unrepented mortal sin on your soul - there's no Purgatory for you, you go straight to Hell.  Now God is the Final Judge on these matters, and He could choose to show mercy based upon the soul and intentions of the individual, but all we can teach is that unrepentent mortal sin (sin which is unto death) equates to DEATH.  Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, go straight to Hell.  Dr. MacArthur is NOT giving you "the inside stuff," he's giving you lies and propaganda.  I hope he's not doing this intentionally and will acknowledge and correct these errors.

Purgatory comes from the word "purge."  And Purgatory is where you go because you didn't make it to justification, you didn't make it to righteousness, but you're a good guy and you tried really hard... we can't send you to Hell - so we'll invent a place and you go there and over a period of three or four hundred years, or whatever it is, you get purged and finally you get righteous and then you can go to Heaven. 

Dr. MacArthur, again, has a false concept of Purgatory.  Every single soul in Purgatory IS SAVED!  They may have some unrepented venial sins, or some other impurity on their soul - but they ARE SAVED!  They WILL go to Heaven, once "every last cent is paid" (Luke 12:59; Matt. 5:26).

And you can get aided because there are some who had more righteousness than they needed.  In fact they were so good and they had extra righteousness and when they died their extra righteousness was put into what is called the Treasury of Merit.  The Treasury of Merit is a big hypothetical box, and God at His own discretion can take some of that out and give it to you while you're in Purgatory to move you faster along.  And you keep hoping that you're going to get, finally to righteous(ness),

Well again, not completely true.  Dr. MacArthur presents us with a partial truth and then creates a bit of a straw man argument.  The "Treasury of Merit" is comprised of Christ's infinite merit AND the merits of the Saints, which is quite finite.  The Church has the authority to loose these merits as she sees fit.  We can discuss this at greater depth if someone so desires.  Suffice it to say, for now, that this Treasury of Merit is not quite what Dr. MacArthur makes it out to be. 

And justification is not a process that finally culminates in Purgatory, it's an act which occurs in a moment of time when God declares you righteous and forgiven.  That is (a) HUGE difference.  One view saves, the other damns because it is a system of works.  

Justification is most certainly a process, as the very word implies!  If it were a one-time act, we'd say "justified" - past tense, and not use a word which is in present tense stating that it is on-going.

(It) sounds good, it's got grace in it, it's got faith in it, it's got righteousness in it, the righteousness of Christ is in it - they use all those terms - in fact this latest document says: "We Catholics and we Protestants believe salvation by grace and salvation by faith and salvation by Christ ALONE, and we believe in the righteousness of Jesus Christ."  And they go, and ah, and ah, (the average) Evangelical "WOW, what else can you say?"  Salvation by faith, by grace through Christ ALONE!  And then there's a paragraph at the end that says, "Of course we have yet to discuss the doctrine of imputation, the Mass and baptismal regeneration."  It doesn't mean anything!  It's just words.  HUGE difference. 

Assuming Dr. MacArthur is referring to the Joint Declaration on Justification (between Lutherans and Catholics, of which MacArthur is neither) let us be clear here... the document doesn't say, as MacArthur quotes "Of course we have yet to discuss imputation, the Mass and baptismal regeneration."  What it DOES say is this: "In this respect, there are still questions of varying importance which need further clarification. These include, among other topics, the relationship between the Word of God and church doctrine, as well as ecclesiology, ecclesial authority, church unity, ministry, the sacraments, and the relation between justification and social ethics."  Let me just say, "HUGE difference" here.  That paragraph goes on to say: "We are convinced that the consensus we have reached offers a solid basis for this clarification. The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church will continue to strive together to deepen this common understanding of justification and to make it bear fruit in the life and teaching of the churches."  So while MacArthur seems to be attempting to villify this attempt to strive for unity - the document is clearly striving for just that, and what is so wrong with focusing on points of commonality as opposed to the polemics we see far too often in apologetics?  Keep in mind the desire/will of God is that we (professing Christians) should be ONE and not divided.  Yes, this document alone does not unite Catholics and Lutherans - but it is a step in the RIGHT direction!  The objective reader here can see that comparing MacArthur's polemics to God's Will there is a "HUGE difference."

And the way God, listen to this, the way God justifies a person is not by infusing grace into them so that they can become perfect, but by not counting their what?  Trespasses against them.  It's just a matter of God saying, "OK, I'm not counting those anymore against you."  It's not God saying, "Oh. there aren't anymore there."   It's not God saying, "Well, you've reached a point where you don't have anymore trespasses, you can be declared righteous."  That's not justifying the ungodly!  God justifies the ungodly, the Bible says in Romans.  He just doesn't impute their sins.  So you can say to a person, "You want some REALLY good news?  God WANTS to save you, God WANTS to justify you and to sanctify, God WANTS no longer to count any sin you ever commit against you, ever.  That is good news!

The Joint Declaration does not speak out against these things! MacArthur is engaging (again) in straw man argumentation. Yes, God wants to save, God wants to no longer count any sin you commit against you - and for those you repent of through the channel HE provided, He does not count against you, EVER.

So, this whole matter of reconciliation is by the will of God, by the act of justification which is tantamount to complete forgiveness.

Again I must stress, justification is not a one-time act!  It IS a process we go through toward sanctification.  I also stress that sins forgiven in the Sacrament of Reconciliation are completely forgiven.

Thirdly, and I have to say this, it is by the obedience of faith, it's by the obedience of faith.  There's a faith component, verse 20.  We're going around begging people on behalf of Christ, "Be ye reconciled to God."  You say:  "If it's all of God, what are we begging people for?"  It's not apart from faith.  It's NOT apart from faith.  We're begging for a response and the response it to believe and to receive as many as received Him.  How can I say it?   They became privileged to count themselves as sons of God.  It's by faith.  So we go around calling people to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, don't we?  Be saved.  Now you know this.  So, getting people to understand this and to put their faith in Christ alone to justify them, is really what we do.  Um, just let me give you a little insight into this. You say, "So what's the actual message?"  Well, it comes down to this, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved," Acts 16:31.  Believe that Christ came into the world, God in human flesh, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, died a substitutionary death on the Cross, rose from the grave, ascended to the right hand of the Father, having accomplished our redemption as our High Priest and coming King.  That's what I call the "drive train" of the Gospel.  You believe that.  You believe in the Christ who is the true Christ and in His death and resurrection - for you.

Scripture answers this "drive train" of the Gospel quite well... "Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble." (James 2:19)

I would be remiss if I did not include some of the things Scripture tells us we must DO to be saved, or have a "saving faith."

What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? (James 2:14)

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?  Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?  Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?  (James 2:20-22)

The following come from the Scripture Catholic site:Neh. 13:14, Psalm 11:7,28:4, Isa. 3:10, 59:18, Jer. 25:14, 50:29, Ezek. 9:10, 11:21, 36:19, Hos. 4:9, 9:15, 12:2, Sir. 16:12,14 - The 2,000 year-old Catholic position on salvation is that we are saved by Jesus Christ and Him alone (cf. Acts 15:11; Eph. 2:5). But by the grace of Christ, we achieve the salvation God desires for us through perseverance in both faith and works. Many Protestants, on the other hand, believe that one just has to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior to be saved, and good works are not necessary (they just flow from those already saved). But these verses, and many others, teach us that our performance of good works is necessary for our salvation. Scripture also does not teach that good works distinguish those who are eternally saved from those who are not saved.
Sir. 35:19; Luke 23:41; John 3:19-21, Rom. 8:13, 2 Tim 4:14, Titus 3:8,14, Rev. 22:12 - these verses also teach us that we all will be judged by God according to our deeds. There is no distinction between the "saved" and the "unsaved."

1 Cor. 3:15 - if works are unnecessary for salvation as many Protestants believe, then why is a man saved (not just rewarded) through fire by a judgment of his works?
Matt. 7:1-3 - we are not judged just by faith, but actually how we judge others, and we get what we have given. Hence, we are judged according to how we responded to God's grace during our lives.

Matt. 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:13 - Jesus taught that we must endure to the very end to be saved. If this is true, then how can Protestants believe in the erroneous teaching of "Once saved, always saved?" If salvation occurred at a specific point in time when we accepted Jesus as personal Lord and Savior, there would be no need to endure to the end. We would already be saved.

Matt. 16:27 – Jesus says He will repay every man for what he has done (works).

Matt. 25:31-46 - Jesus' teaching on the separation of the sheep from the goats is based on the works that were done during their lives, not just on their acceptance of Christ as Savior. In fact, this teaching even demonstrates that those who are ultimately saved do not necessarily have to know Christ. Also, we don’t accept Christ; He accepts us. God first makes the decision to accept us before we could ever accept Him.

Matt. 25:40,45 - Jesus says "Whatever you did to the least of my brothers, you did it to Me." We are judged and our eternal destiny is determined in accordance with our works.

Mark 10:21 - Jesus says sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. This means that our salvation depends upon our works.

Luke 12:43-48 - these verses teach us that we must act according to the Lord's will. We are judged based upon what we know and then do, not just upon what we know.

Luke 14:14 – Jesus says we are repaid for the works we have done at the resurrection of the just. Our works lead to salvation.

Luke 23:41 - some Protestants argue that Jesus gave salvation to the good thief even though the thief did not do any good works. However, the good thief did in fact do a good work, which was rebuking the bad thief when he and others were reviling Jesus. This was a "work" which justified the good thief before Jesus and gained His favor. Moreover, we don't know if the good thief asked God for forgiveness, did works of penance and charity and was reconciled to God before he was crucified.

Rom. 2:6-10, 13 - God will judge every man according to his works. Our salvation depends on how we cooperate with God's grace.

2 Cor. 5:10 - at the judgment Seat of Christ, we are judged according to what we have done in the body, not how much faith we had.

2 Cor. 9:6 – Paul says that he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully, in connection with God’s judgment.

2 Cor. 11:15 - our end will correspond to our deeds. Our works are necessary to both our justification and salvation.

Gal. 6:7-9 – whatever a man sows, he will reap. Paul warns the Galatians not to grow weary in doing good works, for in due season they will reap (the rewards of eternal life).

Eph. 6:8 – whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same again from the Lord.

Col. 3:24-25 - we will receive due payment according to what we have done. Even so, Catholics recognize that such payment is a free unmerited gift from God borne from His boundless mercy.

1 Tim. 6:18-19 – the rich are to be rich in good deeds so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed, that is, eternal life.

2 Tim. 4:14 – Alexander the coppersmith did Paul great harm, and Paul says the Lord will requite him for his deeds.

Heb. 6:10 - God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for His sake. God rewards our works on earth and in heaven.

Heb. 12:14 – without holiness, no one will see the Lord. Holiness requires works of self-denial and charity, and does not come about simply by a profession of faith.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judges us impartially according to our deeds. We participate in applying the grace Jesus won for us at Calvary in our daily lives.

Rev. 2:5 - Jesus tells the Ephesians they have fallen from love they used to have, and orders them to do good works. He is not satisfied with their faith alone. They need to do more than accept Him as personal Lord and Savior.

Rev. 2:10 – Jesus tells the church in Smyrna to be faithful unto death, and He will give them the crown of life. This is the faith of obedience to His commandments.

Rev. 2:19 - Jesus judges the works of the Thyatirans, and despises their tolerance of Jezebel, calling them to repentance.

Rev. 2:23 - Jesus tells us He will give to each of us as our works deserve. He crowns His own gifts by rewarding our good works.

Rev. 2:26 - Jesus says he who conquers and keeps my works until the end will be rewarded in heaven. Jesus thus instructs us to keep his works to the very end. This is not necessary if we are "once saved, always saved."

Rev. 3:2-5,8,15 – Jesus is judging our works from heaven, and these works bear upon our eternal salvation. If we conquer sin through faith and works, He will not blot our names out of the book of life. This means that works bear upon our salvation. Our “works” do not just deal with level of reward we will receive, but whether we will in fact be saved.

Rev. 3:15 – Jesus says, “I know your works, you are neither cold nor hot. Because you are lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth.” Jesus is condemning indifferentism, which is often based on our works.

Rev. 14:13 - we are judged by the Lord by our works – “for their deeds follow them!” Our faith during our life is completed and judged by our works.

Rev. 20:12 – “the dead are judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.”

Rev. 22:12 – Jesus says, “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay everyone for what he has done.”

Sirach 16:12,14 – we are judged according to our deeds, and will receive in accordance with our deeds.
May God richly bless you and all who read this.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

More On the Five Solas

A blogger by the name of John Samson posted the following article.  He and I have had a bit of an exchange going on at his blog, but this is too large for a combox reply, so I am replying in full here.  His words are left unedited and intact - mine are inserted in this color and font.

The Main Issue of The Reformation - The Necessity v. The Sufficiency of Grace

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2009/10/the_main_issue_of_the_reformat.php

I posted the following article here on the blog back in December 2005... - JS

There is no doubt that the 16th century witnessed the greatest ever split in Church history. 

sw:  This is not quite a true statement.  In 1054ad when Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church split I would say this was a much greater split, but without a doubt, "the greatest ever split in Church history" is when Christendom erupted out of Judaism and the Jews rejected their Messiah.  Some 600 years later there was the birth of Islam under the false "prophet" named "Mohammed."  To look at the 16th century when Protestants split from the Catholic Church as "the greatest ever split in Church history" is quite an egocentric view of history on the part of Protestants.

JS: Some view the Reformation as a sad or even an evil episode. Others see it as a time when God restored the one true biblical Gospel back into the hands of the masses. But what exactly were the issues back then? And what are the issues in our own day? Was this a mere tempest in a tea cup?

sw: Now let us consider that the Will and Desire of God is that we be ONE, just as the Father and the Son are One, John 17:11, when a group of "Christians" decides to NOT BE ONE with the group which Jesus Christ Himself founded and built upon the 12 foundations of the Apostles - then would you not join me in declaring this "division" to be "evil?"

JS: I suggest that the issues then and now are exactly the same - who or what speaks for God, and what exactly is the Gospel?

In the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church believed (and still does today) that justification is by grace, through faith, because of Christ. What Rome does not believe is that justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone. According to Rome, justification is by grace plus merit, through faith plus works; because of Christ plus the sinner's contribution of inherent righteousness.

sw: In actuality, it is the Catholic Church which adheres to Scripture here!  St. James makes it explicitly clear - in the ONLY PLACE where the words "faith" and "alone" are used together in Scripture (James 2:24) that we are NOT justified by faith alone!  Mr. Samson (and every Protestant apologist since Luther) argues AGAINST SCRIPTURE in demanding justification is by faith alone.  I believe it is important to quote, verbatim, St. James words here and let Mr. Samson (or any other Protestant apologist who would also dare to contrast their view with Scripture) respond to:  "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."  It is actually quite interesting, and would be humorous if not so tragic, to see how Protestant apologists dance all around this issue and specifically this quote from St. James.

  

JS: In contrast, Martin Luther and his Reformers had 5 main slogans, all using the word "sola," which is the Latin word for "alone." It was this word "alone" that designated the biblical Gospel and set it apart from all other pretenders. The cry of these Reformers was not simply "FAITH!," "GRACE!," "CHRIST!," "THE SCRIPTURE!," or "THE GLORY OF GOD!" All embracing a false Gospel could do that!

sw: At this point, let us draw attention to the very factual statement Mr. Samson has stated here.  The "Five Solas" he (and others) refers to are nothing more than unscriptural slogans!  Well, four out of the five are unscriptural - with the fifth being found in Scripture - but in explicit denial of the "sola" he (and the others) affirms!  Of course I refer to "sola fide" and the scriptural reference to James 2:24 quoted and cited above.  My point being, these are slogans which come not from Scripture, but from extra scriptura sources, primarily Martin Luther, and thus someone who adheres to one of those "solas" (sola scriptura) should flat out REJECT the "Five Solas" on this premise alone!  

JS: The cry was "FAITH ALONE!," "GRACE ALONE!," "CHRIST ALONE!," "SCRIPTURE ALONE!," "THE GLORY OF GOD ALONE!" With Scripture alone as the sure foundation, the Reformers affirmed that justification is by grace alone, received through faith alone because of Christ alone — to the glory of God alone.

The central or material issue in the 16th century controversy was Justification by faith alone (Latin: Sola Fide). Yet often overlooked is another issue which was equally as serious for the life of the Church. The formal issue (the structure in which the whole debate ensued) was the issue of final authority - who or what speaks for God? It was here that Luther and the Reformers believed that Holy Scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith for the Church.

sw: To be accurate here, the "central issue" for Martin Luther was over the "sale" of indulgences - which we would affirm today was abused by folks like Tetzel.  Sure the "solas" came about, but a bit later in the scheme of things, but the "match that lit the fire" was over the sale of indulgences.  Keep in mind, that whole matter was one of discipline, not doctrine.  Luther's objection was not over indulgences, per se, but the sale of them.  But again, his revolt resulted in separation from the Church - and in this separation there was a void of authority now.  Where there was the Church, he could not turn to that, for he rejected it.  A new and "different gospel" had to be introduced - and THEN came the "Five Solas," and chiefly for authority - sola scriptura.  

SOLA SCRIPTURA - SCRIPTURE ALONE
JS: Sola Scriptura, means Scripture alone. This did not refer to simply "me and my Bible in the woods" so to speak, or interpreting the Bible in any way we choose to do so. This doctrine did not seek to negate the authority of the Church and of biblical eldership. Scripture teaches us to submit to godly leaders who have the rule over us (Heb. 13:17). Nor did it refer to Scripture in isolation. What sola Scriptura referred to was the idea that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church.

sw:  As so many Catholic apologists have pointed out - Scripture NO WHERE says Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church!  NO WHERE!  In fact Scripture points us to OTHER SOURCES!  Specifically, in Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus imparts infallible authority upon Simon, whom He renames to Peter (a name which means "rock") but more to the point here - He tells Peter, "whatsoever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven."  Unless you can imagine error being bound or loosed in Heaven, this is infallible authority!  Two chapters later, Jesus gives this infallible authority to our first bishops, the Apostles, as a group (Matthew 18:18). 

JS: Though God has set teachers and other offices in the Church, they are not to exercise dominion over the Bible, but to submit themselves to it.

sw: Again, where does Scripture say teachers and other offices in the Church are not to exercise dominion over the Bible?  I'm not saying they should, but again Mr. Samson has gone into extra scriptura to make a point.  Going extra scriptura pretty much defeats the concept of sola scriptura - and this while he's defining sola scriptura!

JS: Only the Scripture is theopneustos or God breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), and every idea, thought and doctrine needs to have its foundation in Scripture to carry the weight of Divine authority and bind the human conscience.

sw: While I would not deny 2 Tim. 3:16 says Scripture is God breathed, it does not say that Scripture is the ONLY thing God breathed!  Again, Mr. Samson leaves us begging the question of "sola."
 

JS: Regarding false prophets and false teachers, Isaiah 8:19, 20 says, "When they say to you, "Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter," should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn."

The law and the testimony is a reference to the Scripture. If a false teacher says something that cannot be substantiated by sacred Scripture, he/she may claim to be bringing new light, but actually there is no light present there at all. It is the entrance of His Word that brings light.

sw: Actually, Isaiah 8:19-20 doesn't say what Mr. Samson attempts to impute upon it.  The passage says "according to this word..." and to be in "accord" with something does not mean you're going to find every teaching, word for word within it!  No, to be in "accord" simply means a teaching cannot be contrary to "this word."  That's a far cry from "sola."
 

SOLA FIDE - FAITH ALONE
JS: The material principle of the Reformation was Sola Fide, meaning "by Faith alone." This was the material or substance of the preaching of the Reformers. The formal principle "Scripture alone" was the principle that Scripture alone (and not Church tradition) is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. This was the principle by which "Faith Alone" is affirmed, as well as the other solas. That is because these doctrines are the doctrines of the Bible.

sw: We've already shown sola scriptura to be a farce and exposed that NO WHERE does Scripture alone teach the doctrine of Scripture Alone, that is purely a man-made doctrine, and now we move to sola fide - Faith Alone.  The ironic part of THIS doctrine is that not only is it NOT TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE, but Scripture, in the ONLY PLACE the words "faith" and "alone" are used together is in flat out DENIAL of sola fide!  "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."  (James 2:24 NASB)  Many Protestant apologists will avoid this verse completely when talking about sola fide, those who do not avoid it (as we shall soon see from Mr. Samson) engage in double-speak with "faith alone, but not a faith which is alone."  Face it folks, sola means sola - or "alone" - so either faith is "alone" or it isn't.

JS: Against the background of a Europe filled with the traditions of men, including priestly absolution, penances, indulgences, pilgrimages, prayer to the saints, etc., Luther and the Reformers made the bold cry of "Faith alone."

sw: So, is it really "alone" or is it? 

This did not mean faith in isolation, or a dead faith that produced no works. This referred to a vibrant, living faith, for only a living and not a dead faith would result in justification. Faith without works is dead, and a dead faith will not save anyone (James 2:17).

sw: Ah, so "living faith" is NOT ALONE!  Faith which IS alone is DEAD and cannot result in justification.  Faith alone is clearly testified to be contrary to Scripture.

JS: Sola fide then was the belief that faith alone is the instrument of justification without any meritorious works of man added to it.

sw: Hmmm, the previous statement agreed with Scripture, that faith alone is dead, but now Mr. Samson goes out of context to St. Paul - who speaks against "works of the Law."  Works of the Law do not save, Catholics AGREE with that!  Likewise, Catholics would also say that for the same reason that faith alone cannot justify/save - neither can works alone.  Faith and works work together for justification.  

JS: In Romans 3:28 the Apostle Paul declared, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Romans 4:4-5 says, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."

sw: I have already answered for Romans 3, now as for Romans 4... keep reading!  The chapter is about circumcision - a "work of the Law" and speaks to how circumcision is the sign of the faith (see verse 11) thus in this example we're still seeing faith WITH something else.  Now circumcision alone cannot justify - nor can faith alone. 

Many other scriptures would affirm this as the heart of the Gospel (Rom. 3:21 - 4:5; 5:1; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 3:9). Martin Luther called the doctrine of justification "the article of the standing or falling Church." That is, in his estimation, a church preaching the doctrine was "standing," and one not preaching it was, or had already, fallen.

sw: If justification means by "faith alone" - then the church preaching that has already fallen.  Again, what we find in churches which actually defend sola fide, it is "a faith which is not alone" which they defend. 

SOLA GRATIA - GRACE ALONE
JS: Sola Gratia means Grace alone. Surely everyone who had a Bible would affirm this truth at the time of the Reformation. Well firstly, not everyone had access to a Bible, and secondly, no, that is not the case at all.

A pure Pelagian (a follower of the British monk Pelagius) would argue against grace as a necessity, believing that man, apart from God's grace, had the inherent power within himself to raise himself up by his bootstraps to become pleasing to God. But surely Rome would agree with Grace alone, wouldn't it? No, not at all.

sw: One has to wonder if  Mr. Samson is aware that it was through the authority of the Catholic Church that Pelagius and Pelagianism was condemned by the Christian community?  Scripture alone was not the authority by which Pelagius was condemned.

JS: The religions of man are usually comfortable with the idea of God's grace being necessary. Rome has always believed that, as do the Mormon Church in our day (2 Nephi 25:23), but as my friend Dr. James White states so well, "The issue has never been the necessity of grace. It has always been the sufficiency of grace!"

sw: I have to wonder what the source is of White saying that, in fact on his own website we find him saying the opposite!  http://vintage.aomin.org/JWDB7.html  "I’ve seen Him open eyes to the depth of sin, and the absolute necessity of grace. That’s my confidence, and it is truly my prayer that you will be the recipient of His grace even this hour."  (White responding in a debate with an LDS member).
 

JS: The question is this: Is grace able to save or is it merely a help to save, with man's will being the final deciding factor?

sw: The "final deciding factor" is GOD!  God is the JUDGE!  Now ask yourself, is God judging man - or is He judging Himself?  OR - as monergism would have has believe if we take this to a logical conclusion, "judgment" is not even part of the picture - for it would have already been "decided" by God upon whom He would give His Grace to.  
 

JS: The Reformers affirmed that grace actually saves. Grace alone meant grace at the start, grace to the end, grace in the middle, grace without fail, grace without mixture, grace without addition, grace that allows no boasting, grace that precludes all glorying but in the Lord.

sw: So where does "faith" enter into the picture?  Or more importantly, HOW does faith work in the scenario Mr. Samson has just presented?  This is why I say the logical conclusion of monergism eliminates faith from the picture - if we accept how Grace Alone is presented here - there is no room for faith, much less "saving faith" which necessarily would be accompanied by works done in faith (not works of the Law).

JS: It is here that we get into the arena of monergism (one working) v. synergism (more than one party working) regarding salvation. All the Reformers were monergists, believing that God's grace is the essential deciding factor that enables a person to believe. Both Roman Catholicism and Arminianism would affirm God's grace as necessary but insufficient in and of itself to save. One can readily see why a later generation of Reformers viewed the doctrines of the Arminians as the first steps on a synergistic highway back to Rome.

"So then, it is not of him who wills or of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." Rom. 9:16

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12, 13

"For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" Phil 1:29

Apollos "greatly helped those who had believed through grace." Acts 18:27

"So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." Romans 9:16

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Eph. 2:8, 9

"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." Rom. 11:6

sw: Again, these are all answered by the fact that St. Paul objects to "works of the Law" which are different from what St. James is talking about when he said "we are justified by works, and NOT BY FAITH ALONE."  However, there IS a Catholic way to accept "sola gratia!"  Our salvation is due entirely to the Grace of God, and specifically to the finished work of Jesus Christ who took our sin upon Himself, suffered death and then rose victorious over sin and death and it is by GRACE that He freely gives the GIFT (grace) of everlasting life to ANYONE who will ACCEPT the gift.

SOLUS CHRISTUS - CHRIST ALONE
JS: The next sola was Solus Christus, the affirmation that it is Christ alone who saves. It is not Christ plus someone or something else. Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."John 14:6

"by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead - by this name this man stands here before you in good health. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."Acts 4:10, 12

In all reality the doctrine of justification by faith alone is really theological short-hand for justification by the work of Christ alone. There was a double function at work in this regard. Christ not only died an atoning death for our sins, but we need to remember that He also lived a sinless life. If all that was necessary for our justification was the death on the cross, Christ could have come to earth on Good Friday, died on the cross for us, and three days later, rise again. However, for more than 33 years, Christ was tempted in every way like us, yet He was without sin (Heb. 4:15). Christ is the only One who can say that He loved His Father perfectly in life, with all His heart, soul, mind and strength.

At the cross then, all our sins were laid on Him (though of course, He remained the holy and spotless Lamb of God, in and of Himself) and as our sin bearer, He was punished in our place.

As the angel declared to Joseph in Matthew 1:21, "you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

"He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree" 1 Pet. 2:24).

Isa 53:5, 6 says, "But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him."

But that is far from all that took place. There was a double imputation. Not only were our sins imputed to Christ and He bore their punishment for us, but positively, the righteousness of Christ was imputed to us. The punishment due to us came upon Him, and the pleasure of God due to Jesus' obedience to every jot and tittle of the law came upon us. That is because the righteousness of Jesus Christ is one that has fulfilled the entire law of God. 2 Cor 5:21 declares,"He (God) made Him (Jesus) who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (Christ)."

The righteous demands of the law (the requirement of total obedience) was met by Christ alone who becomes the righteousness of the believer (1 Cor. 1:30). The work of Christ is perfect in every respect, and perfect in every aspect. The righteousness now enjoyed by the believer is an alien one (one that comes from outside of himself) for it is the righteousness of Christ Himself. It is a gift, not something earned (Rom. 5:17), and is the cause of our rejoicing in the direct presence of the Lord. As believers in Christ, we've been made righteous with a righteousness that has never known sin. Hallelujah!

"But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord." (1 Cor 1:30, 31) We are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone.

sw: Well, a couple things need to be mentioned here.  1) Catholics do not oppose a view of Christ alone being the cause and reason of our salvation.  2) Mr. Samson stops a bit too early in his defense of Christ as the reason!  If it were merely His death (which is all that Samson alludes to above) then there is little difference between Christ's Sacrifice and that of the countless "spotless lambs" which were offered previously.  The real difference is not merely the perfect Sacrifice - but that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, victorious over death and Satan.  It is in His Resurrection that we have hope in our own.

SOLI DEO GLORIA - TO GOD ALONE BE THE GLORY
JS: The final sola was Soli Deo Gloria, which means "to God alone be the glory!" Again, wouldn't everyone agree with this?

Well, no, because at the time of the Reformation there was much attention given to Mary, to the saints, to the lighting of candles, etc.. In Medieval Catholicism there was massive confusion due to the plethora of idols, who for all practical purposes, became almost minor deities.

sw: Protestants like to point to the "honor" given to Mary and the Saints as idolatry, but they don't consider that the word "honor" in the English has many levels of meaning.  If we turn to the Latin terminology (still the official language of the Church for all official documents) the honor given to God is called "latria" whereas the honor given to Saints is "dulia" (with that which is given to the Blessed Virgin being called "hyper-dulia").  The point is, the honor given Mary or the Saints is not the same honor given to God Almighty, and it never has been nor ever will be.  I know that Protestants will immediately try to dismiss this and say "honor is honor," but that's simply not true!  Scripture even tells us to "honor" our father and mother!  So, "honor" is not reserved to God alone - but there is a level of honor we reserve for Him alone - and that is properly called "latria."

JS: Even the young Luther, in 1505, in the midst of the thunderstorm that threatened his life, prayed to Saint Anne. As a lightning bolt struck just feet away from him, in fear of his life, he shouted, "Save me Saint Anne and I will become a monk." Saint Anne was the patron saint of miners, and seeing that Luther was from a mining family, it seemed natural to him to pray to her to save him from impending death. Luther, in surviving the storm, kept his vow, gave up his studies to become a lawyer (much to the anguish and consternation of his father, Hans) and joined the monastery. The young Luther's devotion to the saints (before his conversion to Christ) was typical of that era.

sw: Again, keeping things in a proper perspective is important.  Merely asking for assistance from St. Anne is not the same as showing latria to her.  We need to add, Luther broke his "vow" when he left his vocation as a monk and married a former nun, who also broke her vow.  Keep in mind, these vows were made before God.

JS: God will not share His glory with another (Isa. 48:11). Salvation was designed to give God's glory the maximum amount of exposure. It redounds to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph 1:6), according to the riches of His grace (v. 7), to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory (v. 12), with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory, (v. 14). Only God gets the glory for our salvation. Human merit (or works) plays no part in a person's salvation but are merely the by-product, or fruit, of a relationship with God, established by God's grace alone (Eph. 2:8-10).

sw: Again, we do not share God's glory with anyone else.  God, and God alone receives our latria.

JS: The five solas are relevant in all ages, because they are truths that can be clearly demonstrated from sacred Scripture. To many, these doctrines are mere historical novelties - interesting milestones and beliefs of a former era. Yet, as far as I can see, it is very much apparent that we need these same biblical, Holy Spirit inspired correctives in our own day.
 
sw: Except, as we have already seen - sola scriptura is not found in Scripture and sola fide is contrary to Scripture - so while Protestants often say the Five Solas are found in Scripture - that's simply not true.

JS: The 16th Century is one very different to our own. We may strongly disagree with the burning of heretics at that time, and perhaps even be shocked by the very hostile rhetoric that flowed freely between those who disagreed on these issues. Yet at the same time, we must try to understand a culture so removed from ours where people believed the Bible was the Word of God; that heaven and hell were real places; and that doctrine actually mattered.

sw: And we must not ignore the fact that both sides participated in such things as "burning heretics" and the "hostile rhetoric...between those who disagreed."  Protestants don't get a free pass on this.  Such things were part of the culture of the time.

JS: Today, many want to hear a positive or affirming message when they come to a Church. They certainly don't want to hear about the majestic holiness of God, or the wrath of God against sin. I am not sure how popular the Apostle Paul would be if he was enabled to preach on Christian television in our day and taught from Romans Chapters 1 - 3. What do you think?

In 2 Timothy 4:1-5, Paul gave Timothy this charge:

"I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."

sw: On this, I agree with Mr. Samson.  While it is true that God is love - we cannot ignore that He is also just.  He has freely given mankind the gift of salvation through His grace, those who reject that gift will pay dearly for eternity.  

JS: Perhaps the greatest sign that all is not well in our day is the fact that God may well be giving the people what they want - preachers who will tell them what their itching ears want to hear (verses 3, 4 above). Could it be that this, by itself, is God's judgment? I'll let you, the reader decide. What I am sure of is this: God is calling the Church back to the proclamation of these doctrines that once shook the world.

sw: Interesting speculation, but the reader should also remember that the proclamation of these doctrines was unheard of for over 1500 years!  The objective reader should see these proclamations as the proclamation of a "different gospel" and flee from them - especially in light of the fact that sola scriptura is not even mentioned by Scripture and sola fide is flatly denied by Scripture.  The one who truly follows Christ will follow the Church He built.  He established His Church on bishops - the Apostles - and without a valid succession to those bishops - Protestantism has nothing but an impostor church preaching a different gospel.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<