The Five Solas

For those deep thinkers out there.
User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12020
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by tuttle » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:43 am

wosbald wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:34 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:31 am
That said, maybe lets focus in on another 'sola'. How about Sola Deo Gloria. All glory is due to God alone. That's a good one regardless of what side of the river yer on, no?
How does that work in the Jesus of Nazareth, Man-God kind-of-case?
Why don't you tell me how you think it doesn't work.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18010
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by wosbald » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:38 am

+JMJ+
Jean Borella wrote:The apostolic doctrine is, then, of Christic origin. It is not the result of a relatively late elaboration wrought from scriptural data, as claimed by many Modernist critics, a thesis which seems unintelligible: I do not see how it was possible to deduce the Christian doctrinal corpus from the text of the Scriptures; from one to the other there is a hiatus, a humanly insurmountable break in continuity. And moreover the same critics, or at least their rationalist ancestors (Voltaire and his ilk), have not failed to speak ironically about the fragile support that Scripture offers dogmas, ignoring without doubt that it is the truth of the doctrine of the faith that determines the meaning of Scripture, not the reverse: faith (the doctrine of faith) comes ex auditu (from hearing = from oral tradition) and not ex visu (from sight = from reading). In the light of the trinitarian mystery, the Scripture's teachings on the Father, Son, and Spirit are illuminated and make sense; without this illumination, the same teachings might sanction the most divergent theological constructions, as proven by the history of the heresies, each one of which can refer to a Gospel verse. Besides, reason suffices to show that it could not be otherwise: the meaning of no text is determined on the basis of its intrinsic significance, and, to know what it is saying, it is first necessary to know what it is speaking about. The principle 'scriptura sola interpres ipsius' is philosophically false: Scripture is neither the only, nor the first, interpreter of itself. [Present-day catechesis too often forgets this philosophic truth.] I am certainly not saying that Scripture is not the source of faith. Of this faith it is the first signifier. Just as a sign is "a signifier that looks to a referent by means of a sense", so Scripture is the sacred and immutable signifier in its textural concreteness that looks to the theo-christic referent which the doctrine of faith (Church dogma) expresses by means of the sense that a reading of it produces, a reading conjointly exegetical and theological. And just as the knowledge of a sign presupposes a knowledge of its significance, so the knowledge of faith can only start from a doctrine of truth, abstractly expressed and objectively conceived. Is this to say, then, that Scripture serves but to verify a posteriori the conformity of abstractly expressed doctrine to the culturally dated presentation of it offered by Scripture? This would be derisive. Doctrinal knowledge, of a mental nature, goes to Scripture as to its vivifying source, because this Scripture is the most direct and the most concrete testimony that we have of the very Word of God: God is really present in Scripture, not in his substance (which is reserved to the Eucharist), but in his form (since Scripture is a formal reality, and not a substance like bread and wine): as for dogmatic expression, God is only intentionally present there, and not 'in reality'. The outcome of these precisions, I note in passing, is that Christianity, contrary to an all-too-widespread opinion, is not a 'religion of the Book' but a religion of the Word made flesh.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35715
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by Del » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:45 am

Sir Moose wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:47 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:12 pm
Jester wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:43 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:47 am
Jester wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:58 am
Jocose wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:25 am
Goose's interpretations of the Bible are evidence enough that Sola Scriptura does not work.
I read through most of the Sola threads before posting this thread. I found this argument to be the most used. In fact this argument is the foundation of the other arguments against sola Scriptura. Not only do I find this an extremely weak argument (that was addressed by Luther himself), but I also find the basis of the argument to be void by the substance of the accusation. Reformers believe Scripture alone and the accusation attacks individuals apart from Scripture? Gods Word is insufficient because John Doe is illiterate?

I understand that the Word of God in the hands of any man can and will cause individual interpretation. I find this to be the same argument for taking citizens weapons. Some will be untrained, irresponsible and some may even use them to harm others or themselves. Therefore confiscate all weapons. The fact that someone can interpret Scripture to mean anything they want it to does not negate the fact that Scripture has one interpretation and it itself is sufficient for all knowledge of saving faith.

This does not reject the church, if anything it should solidify a Scripture teaching church. The church should be able to correctly teach what is in Scripture but to say that because Goose church cant do it also majorly points out that the Catholic and Orthodox church cant either. Which drives to the heart of the doctrine of sola Scriptura. All churches are under the authority of Christ by fallible men. When fallible men start to go astray we have a solid baseline that is sufficient for all teaching, rebuke, correction and training in righteousness so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

What's really scary is that some may even get so pompous that they find their own knowledge of God to be so right that it is infallible. Getting so lofty they shoot their righteous arrows at the poor goose below them.
The Apostolic answer to the bolded questions above:

The Reformers were wrong because Scripture was never intended by God to be the only reliable source for our instruction. The New Testament Scriptures were written by the Apostles for Christians who had already been instructed in the basics of Christian faith by the Apostles. Sola Scriptura is a man-made doctrine opposed even to Scripture, and we all know the man who invented it.
The Bible wrote:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

(c) 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Or traditions

translation and notes according to the NIV
As to the "illiteracy" of John Doe: It is also the great biblical scholars from the Reformation to the present day who cannot find enough evidence in Scripture to agree on the most basic Christian beliefs, including whether or not any of the 5 Solas are valid.

Some basic questions that confound the children of the Reformation:
- What happens in Baptism?
- Should children be baptized?
- What happens in the Lord's Supper/Eucharist? How often should we celebrate it?
- What happens when a Christian dies?

The Apostles were not confused about these things, and were quick to correct those who were mistaken (e.g., 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians).

Yet the practical experience from the experimental dogma of Sola Scriptura has been that we should be confused, and no one can correct us.

This is why the Reformation failed in its first generation.
Would you say Scripture is a reliable source for our instruction on its own?

I have never been to anything Catholic in my life and I agree these are basic questions. Basic questions you can find in Scripture alone. Now if your argument is you also need some information outside of Scripture for saving faith then it is on Catholicism to prove it and not the Scripture only crowd. Catholicism must prove to every other denomination that Scripture is insufficient, not teachable, rebuking, correcting and not sufficiently training in righteousness so that the man of God can be equipped for every good work.
The notion that one could know everything by Scripture Alone was a new idea, invented 1500 years after Christianity was established. And that idea has failed in its burden of proof -- Those who hold Sola Scriptura are unable to agree on anything.

Meanwhile, the Apostolic Faith has proven its integrity. The faith has not changed since the time of the Apostles.... the Apostolic Christians of the East and the West still hold the same Apostolic Faith, even after 1000 years of not playing nice together.
That fails on a few counts. First of all, the Apostolic Faith has changed...unless you're saying I can still pop down to the local Catholic church and buy some indulgences (as an example). Secondly, if fails to acknowledge that there have been various local Catholic churches who have been at odds with Rome throughout the years. Usually the Catholics just dismiss them as not really Catholics anymore or they swap out the priest to try to get them back on track. Third, it disregards the fact that there are Protestant creeds and confessions that have remained intact for hundreds of years.
There are also plenty of evidence in Scripture that Scripture alone is not sufficient.
- The Scripture experts at the time of Jesus were the scribes and Pharisees. They taught from Scripture alone. But the crowds were astounded by the teaching of Jesus -- because He taught with Authority.
- The disciples on the road to Emmaus were familiar with all so the Scriptures, but they did not understand until the risen Christ (hidden from their senses) explained the Scriptures to them.
- The Ethiopian eunuch was reading the Scriptures, but he could not comprehend them alone. He needed Philip to reveal the truth to him. And even then, Philip said that he must be baptized in order to be saved. Even true knowledge of Scripture is not sufficient.

The Emmaus story is especially revealing.
- The disciples did not recognize Jesus in the flesh. Jesus did not want them to find Jesus that way.
- The disciples did not recognize Jesus in the Scripture alone... even as Jesus revealed Himself in the Scriptures! This is not how Jesus wants us to see Him.
- The disciples eyes were opened, and the recognized Jesus in the breaking of the Bread. This is how Jesus wants us to know Him!
First of all, Philip did not tell the Ethiopian that he needed to be baptized to be saved. The Ethiopian asked if he could be baptized, and Philip said that if he believed, then he could.
Secondly, every example you gave of people not being able to understand the Bible was from before the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who gives us understanding.
Third, by your own admission, everything that the disciples needed to know about Jesus was available in the Old Testament--they just needed God-given understanding (which, as I stated above, we now get from the Holy Spirit).
I wonder if these disciples heard Jesus give the Bread of Life discourse (John 6). Were they among the few who stayed, hoping someday to receive understanding? This was the answer to their prayer and faith!
You also ignore the fact that when Paul taught to the Berean church, they went to the Scripture to verify the truth of what he taught, not vice versa.
Hey buddy! I'm not sure where you are going with this.

The teachings of the Apostolic Church are handed down from the Apostles, the same then and now.

Simony (the selling of holy objects and graces, named after Simon Magus in Acts 8) was a sin in the Bible, a sin in the Middle Ages, and a sin now. Selling indulgences was wrong in the Middle Ages, and everyone knew it. Dante condemned it, placing a couple of simonite popes in his Inferno.

But the faith of indulgences -- merit for our good works -- is biblical faith. The practical acts of charity cover a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8).

Likewise, factions in the Church were sinful in biblical times, sinful during the Reformation, and sinful now. Everyone knows it.

In the Middle Ages, you say that we needed a Reformation to remove the sin of selling indulgences.
In the modern era, I say that we need a De-Reformation to remove the sin of factions.

As for the Bereans -- I did not forget them. I didn't mention because they didn't seem relevant. YES -- the truth from the Holy Spirit should be consistent with the Truth in Scripture, which also comes from the Holy Spirit.

The difference is that Sola Scriptura claims that all doctrine should be founded on Scripture Alone.
Whereas Apostolic Faith insists that the Apostolic Teaching of the Church is the foundation of all doctrine, and the Scripture supports and helps us to understand.

Scripture agrees that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth -- 1 Timothy 3:15.
And Scripture warns that false teachers twist the Scriptures into false teachings -- 2 Peter 3:15-16

I am a Catholic because I see that the Apostolic Church is far more biblical than any of the Protestant sects. Jesus gave a Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, to correct us when we are mistaken about the Church's Scriptures. He knew that we would need correction.

Defying this Church is defying Her Scriptures, even as one claims that Scripture Alone is Supreme. The reality is that Scripture is diminished. One cannot even be clear about the central gift of salvation: That Jesus gives His own Flesh and Blood to us, so that we can receive Him -- and be received into Him, as one body.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35715
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by Del » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:08 am

tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:43 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:34 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:31 am
That said, maybe lets focus in on another 'sola'. How about Sola Deo Gloria. All glory is due to God alone. That's a good one regardless of what side of the river yer on, no?
How does that work in the Jesus of Nazareth, Man-God kind-of-case?
Why don't you tell me how you think it doesn't work.
It works for all. It is the motto of the Jesuits: Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam -- "All to the greater glory of God."

I don't understand Wos's question, but it is not a question of doubt (like Zechariah's scoffing at Gabriel, "How can this be?"). It is a question that believes but also seeks understanding (like Mary's response to Gabriel, "How can this be?").
=============================================
That is the point of the Bereans, by the way. (Back to Sir Moose's confusion, thinking that the Bereans were "Sola Scriptura" folks.)

Paul praised them, because they believed the good news that Paul had brought -- and they showed this by checking the Scriptures for verification and understanding.

Paul had suffered in other synagogues, where they had scoffed and thrown him out -- perhaps even referencing Scriptures which seemed to refute his message. ("nothing good can come from Nazareth")

Studying the Scripture is great! But the Scriptures were written for persons who were already instructed in the Christian faith. We have to know the truth from a reliable source before the Scriptures can be understood in their fullness.

Otherwise we are liable to forget that Christ washes away our sins in baptism, perhaps mistaking that faith alone is sufficient. And the Risen Christ is fully present in the Eucharist -- Body, Blood, human soul and Divine Being. It only looks like bread and wine. We have to know these by faith before the Scripture is comprehensible.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12020
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by tuttle » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:49 am

Del wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:08 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:43 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:34 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:31 am
That said, maybe lets focus in on another 'sola'. How about Sola Deo Gloria. All glory is due to God alone. That's a good one regardless of what side of the river yer on, no?
How does that work in the Jesus of Nazareth, Man-God kind-of-case?
Why don't you tell me how you think it doesn't work.
It works for all. It is the motto of the Jesuits: Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam -- "All to the greater glory of God."

I don't understand Wos's question, but it is not a question of doubt (like Zechariah's scoffing at Gabriel, "How can this be?"). It is a question that believes but also seeks understanding (like Mary's response to Gabriel, "How can this be?").
=============================================
That is the point of the Bereans, by the way. (Back to Sir Moose's confusion, thinking that the Bereans were "Sola Scriptura" folks.)

Paul praised them, because they believed the good news that Paul had brought -- and they showed this by checking the Scriptures for verification and understanding.

Paul had suffered in other synagogues, where they had scoffed and thrown him out -- perhaps even referencing Scriptures which seemed to refute his message. ("nothing good can come from Nazareth")

Studying the Scripture is great! But the Scriptures were written for persons who were already instructed in the Christian faith. We have to know the truth from a reliable source before the Scriptures can be understood in their fullness.

Otherwise we are liable to forget that Christ washes away our sins in baptism, perhaps mistaking that faith alone is sufficient. And the Risen Christ is fully present in the Eucharist -- Body, Blood, human soul and Divine Being. It only looks like bread and wine. We have to know these by faith before the Scripture is comprehensible.
Sola Scriptura doesn't deal with whether or not Scripture is comprehensible all by itself. It is about authority. When the Church goes astray, what authority is there to bring her back? When the Church teaches X, does it line up with what the Church believes is the Word of God?
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35715
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by Del » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:12 pm

tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:49 am
Del wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:08 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:43 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:34 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:31 am
That said, maybe lets focus in on another 'sola'. How about Sola Deo Gloria. All glory is due to God alone. That's a good one regardless of what side of the river yer on, no?
How does that work in the Jesus of Nazareth, Man-God kind-of-case?
Why don't you tell me how you think it doesn't work.
It works for all. It is the motto of the Jesuits: Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam -- "All to the greater glory of God."

I don't understand Wos's question, but it is not a question of doubt (like Zechariah's scoffing at Gabriel, "How can this be?"). It is a question that believes but also seeks understanding (like Mary's response to Gabriel, "How can this be?").
=============================================
That is the point of the Bereans, by the way. (Back to Sir Moose's confusion, thinking that the Bereans were "Sola Scriptura" folks.)

Paul praised them, because they believed the good news that Paul had brought -- and they showed this by checking the Scriptures for verification and understanding.

Paul had suffered in other synagogues, where they had scoffed and thrown him out -- perhaps even referencing Scriptures which seemed to refute his message. ("nothing good can come from Nazareth")

Studying the Scripture is great! But the Scriptures were written for persons who were already instructed in the Christian faith. We have to know the truth from a reliable source before the Scriptures can be understood in their fullness.

Otherwise we are liable to forget that Christ washes away our sins in baptism, perhaps mistaking that faith alone is sufficient. And the Risen Christ is fully present in the Eucharist -- Body, Blood, human soul and Divine Being. It only looks like bread and wine. We have to know these by faith before the Scripture is comprehensible.
Sola Scriptura doesn't deal with whether or not Scripture is comprehensible all by itself. It is about authority. When the Church goes astray, what authority is there to bring her back? When the Church teaches X, does it line up with what the Church believes is the Word of God?
It is about authority. The key problem with Sola Scriptura is that it breaks the Holy Spirit's authority to correct any church or Christian who follows that doctrine. This is why Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura.

You know the ways that the Holy Spirit has guided the Apostolic Church back on track. As per the biblical model of the Council of Jerusalem, the bishops gather under fervent prayer to the Holy Spirit, and once the Holy Spirit has spoken there is no refuting it. There are often great saints and miracles involved as well, so that the Holy Spirit makes His will known to us.

Sola Scriptura is unable to answer whether the Eucharist is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
CodeMonkey
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 4271
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Dark side of the moon

Re: The Five Solas

Post by CodeMonkey » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:33 pm

This is what I hear in my mind while reading this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JmA2ClUvUY
“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play” – Newspaper reporter.

"Trying is the first step towards failure" - Homer Simpson

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14874
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by hugodrax » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:51 pm

CodeMonkey wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:33 pm
This is what I hear in my mind while reading this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JmA2ClUvUY
Gentlemen:

You have witnessed the birth of a CPS meme.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
Skip
Everything in Moderatoration
Everything in Moderatoration
Posts: 23816
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Slightly East of Pepik
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by Skip » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:21 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:51 pm
CodeMonkey wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:33 pm
This is what I hear in my mind while reading this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JmA2ClUvUY
Gentlemen:

You have witnessed the birth of a CPS meme.
And they both have more hair than Del.
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 Winner of the CPS Award: "Most Likely to be Found Without Pants at Any Given Moment"

"No man is peer to Skip, peasant." -A_Morley

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12020
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by tuttle » Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:52 am

Del wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:12 pm
The key problem with Sola Scriptura is that it breaks the Holy Spirit's authority to correct any church or Christian who follows that doctrine.
The Holy Spirit is the divine author of the Scriptures, no? So are you're telling me that using Scripture to correct church doctrine breaks the Holy Spirit's authority?

Sola Scriptura does not do away with the authority granted to the church. Anyone that says different is not being fair to the doctrine. Church councils have the full weight of the authority of the Holy Spirit, insofar as they align with the Scriptures.

Paul very clearly tells us that there were and are going to be people from within that will try to twist the gospel. (Gal 1:7 "Evidently some people are troubling you and trying to distort the gospel of Christ." Acts 20:29-30 "I know that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock. Even from your own number, men will rise up and distort the truth to draw away disciples after them.")

Discrepancies between what the Church was teaching and what the Scriptures were teaching were being noticed years before and during the Reformation. The morality of the leadership was beyond disgusting and was perhaps the very thing that caused the most outrage, and certainly was a signal that something wasn't quite right. So you can imagine the feeling of many of the Roman Church's priests and scholars, as they were studying the Scriptures during this time. They were seeing things taught by the Church officially that was flat contradicted by the Scriptures. Where is one to go when Church Authority has been so compromised, both in doctrine and morality? These concerned Catholic priests, these pastors whose duty it was to feed the flock, remained true to the faith by holding fast to the solid rock of Scripture. They weren't denying that the Church had no authority. They were seeking to set the church back onto a good and right course. You would, I believe, be astounded at how heavily at times the Reformers leaned upon the Early Church Fathers in their writings. It made absolute contextual sense to cling to the Scriptures in this way.

I hear your concerns though, about the fractures, about the misuse of Scripture, about the individualization of interpretation divorced from the church, etc. Those are concerns I share, and I would contend that such things are the fruit of the enemy sowing weeds among the wheat, just as the enemy was sowing weeds before 1517. I would hardly say that all the corruptions and wrongs that the Roman Catholic Church was contending with before and during the Reformation was the fruit of all the good doctrines. But its not beyond the realm of possibility that good doctrines can turn sour. That bad men can take good things and use them for evil purposes. Same with sola Scriptura. I contend it is a very good doctrine that has often been hijacked by weedy people and denominations which makes it easier for opponents to throw rocks at it.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18010
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by wosbald » Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:57 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:43 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:34 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:31 am
That said, maybe lets focus in on another 'sola'. How about Sola Deo Gloria. All glory is due to God alone. That's a good one regardless of what side of the river yer on, no?
How does that work in the Jesus of Nazareth, Man-God kind-of-case?
Why don't you tell me how you think it doesn't work.
What I'm asking is, how does one isolate Christ's human-nature so as to ensure that it doesn't receive a single drop of glory?




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12020
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by tuttle » Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:38 am

wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:57 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:43 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:34 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:31 am
That said, maybe lets focus in on another 'sola'. How about Sola Deo Gloria. All glory is due to God alone. That's a good one regardless of what side of the river yer on, no?
How does that work in the Jesus of Nazareth, Man-God kind-of-case?
Why don't you tell me how you think it doesn't work.
What I'm asking is, how does one isolate Christ's human-nature so as to ensure that it doesn't receive a single drop of glory?
Are you contending that Sola Deo Gloria denies the Chalcedonian Creed? Or are you just trying to shove a square peg in a round hole to make a point?
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18010
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by wosbald » Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:46 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:38 am
wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:57 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:43 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:34 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:31 am
That said, maybe lets focus in on another 'sola'. How about Sola Deo Gloria. All glory is due to God alone. That's a good one regardless of what side of the river yer on, no?
How does that work in the Jesus of Nazareth, Man-God kind-of-case?
Why don't you tell me how you think it doesn't work.
What I'm asking is, how does one isolate Christ's human-nature so as to ensure that it doesn't receive a single drop of glory?
Are you contending that Sola Deo Gloria denies the Chalcedonian Creed? Or are you just trying to shove a square peg in a round hole to make a point?
I'm asking you.

I know that the Jesuit AMDG doesn't "deny the Creed", but then again, its context is different from Protestant ones.

I also bet dollars-to-donuts that if one digs deep enough, one will find various Reformed/Calvinist theologians wrestling with this very question.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12020
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by tuttle » Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:55 am

wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:46 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:38 am
wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:57 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:43 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:34 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:31 am
That said, maybe lets focus in on another 'sola'. How about Sola Deo Gloria. All glory is due to God alone. That's a good one regardless of what side of the river yer on, no?
How does that work in the Jesus of Nazareth, Man-God kind-of-case?
Why don't you tell me how you think it doesn't work.
What I'm asking is, how does one isolate Christ's human-nature so as to ensure that it doesn't receive a single drop of glory?
Are you contending that Sola Deo Gloria denies the Chalcedonian Creed? Or are you just trying to shove a square peg in a round hole to make a point?
I'm asking you.

I know that the Jesuit AMDG doesn't "deny the Creed", but then again, its context is different from Protestant ones.

I also bet dollars-to-donuts that if one digs deep enough, one will find various Reformed/Calvinist theologians wrestling with this very question.
I've not heard of anyone ever wrestling with that...though I am very aware that as long as there is an open gate (or even a mirage of an open gate) sheep will try to go through it regardless of tradition/denomination/etc.

But if one digs deep enough, maybe we've left the essence of a certain doctrine behind. Maybe we've tunneled into someone else's property Again, bad dudes (even well meaning dudes) can take a good thing and abuse it, or twist it, and opponents aren't above slander.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18010
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by wosbald » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:03 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:55 am
wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:46 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:38 am
Are you contending that Sola Deo Gloria denies the Chalcedonian Creed? Or are you just trying to shove a square peg in a round hole to make a point?
I'm asking you.

I know that the Jesuit AMDG doesn't "deny the Creed", but then again, its context is different from Protestant ones.

I also bet dollars-to-donuts that if one digs deep enough, one will find various Reformed/Calvinist theologians wrestling with this very question.
I've not heard of anyone ever wrestling with that...though I am very aware that as long as there is an open gate (or even a mirage of an open gate) sheep will try to go through it regardless of tradition/denomination/etc.

But if one digs deep enough, maybe we've left the essence of a certain doctrine behind. Maybe we've tunneled into someone else's property Again, bad dudes (even well meaning dudes) can take a good thing and abuse it, or twist it, and opponents aren't above slander.
I bet that you would find your favorite Reformed theologians confronting this question in one form or another.

Of course, I'm not claiming that they will flatly admit that it "denies the Creed", but they will treat it as a problematic which demands theological engagement, regardless of the strategies which they may adopt to resolve it.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32409
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by UncleBob » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:14 am

Image
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Cleon
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13721
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Indiana - South of 40
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by Cleon » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:52 am

wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:57 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:43 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:34 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:31 am
That said, maybe lets focus in on another 'sola'. How about Sola Deo Gloria. All glory is due to God alone. That's a good one regardless of what side of the river yer on, no?
How does that work in the Jesus of Nazareth, Man-God kind-of-case?
Why don't you tell me how you think it doesn't work.
What I'm asking is, how does one isolate Christ's human-nature so as to ensure that it doesn't receive a single drop of glory?
That's a strange question, wos. I think the key is that one can't practically isolate Christ's human nature from his (Trinitarian) God nature. It's a mystery that we can only take so far. One can do it in thought, but that's not REAL. So, when Jesus the god-man is glorified so is the Trinity.

Oh, I see the Chalcedon question. You know, the Reformed come directly out of the RCC. We're creedal. As such, there is a lot of overlap. I'd submit that the context, concerning Chaldedon, is not as different as you think it is.
"Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven" - Jesus

"More people need to put their big boy britches on." - JMG

"Dang, a pipe slap." - JimVH

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35715
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by Del » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:51 am

wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:03 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:55 am
wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:46 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:38 am
Are you contending that Sola Deo Gloria denies the Chalcedonian Creed? Or are you just trying to shove a square peg in a round hole to make a point?
I'm asking you.

I know that the Jesuit AMDG doesn't "deny the Creed", but then again, its context is different from Protestant ones.

I also bet dollars-to-donuts that if one digs deep enough, one will find various Reformed/Calvinist theologians wrestling with this very question.
I've not heard of anyone ever wrestling with that...though I am very aware that as long as there is an open gate (or even a mirage of an open gate) sheep will try to go through it regardless of tradition/denomination/etc.

But if one digs deep enough, maybe we've left the essence of a certain doctrine behind. Maybe we've tunneled into someone else's property Again, bad dudes (even well meaning dudes) can take a good thing and abuse it, or twist it, and opponents aren't above slander.
I bet that you would find your favorite Reformed theologians confronting this question in one form or another.

Of course, I'm not claiming that they will flatly admit that it "denies the Creed", but they will treat it as a problematic which demands theological engagement, regardless of the strategies which they may adopt to resolve it.
What is the contention here?

Let me draw up a straw man: I suppose that a foolish Sola Scriptura scholar with a Ph.D. could become confused... if he refuses to look at history, due to all of that "Catholic Church error."
- He could struggle to understand the Trinity: three Persons in one divine nature.
- He could struggle to understand the hypostatic U***n: two natures in the One Person of Christ.

The Apostles believed these things, and that is why we know they are true -- Apostolic Tradition. The heresies of Sabellius & Arius & Nestorius were subtle denials of this faith. The Church dealt with those errors, but one who denies the Church's history could easily fall into them again.

It took centuries of careful work to develop the language that we have to describe this faith. Yet these mysteries still surpass human understanding, and so these questions continue to intrigue theologians.

But if our reformed theologian is allergic to words like Apostolic Tradition and Catholic teaching, he is doomed to frustration. The Apostles did not have precise words to describe their faith, so the Scriptures that they wrote are capable of being twisted and confused. Scripture says so... (2 Peter 2 [whole chapter], and 2 Peter 3:15 [in particular]).

I am not going to worry about that guy, even as he writes catchy songs to spread his errors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ez6kKvqdg
==============================================
As to the tricky and stupid question of how to avoid giving glory to Christ's human nature, in seeming defiance of Sola Deo Gloria:

We know from Scripture that human nature itself gives glory to God. Mary says so about herself, in Scripture: "My soul magnified the Lord!" (Luke 1:46)

And this should be no surprise, for human nature is made in the image of God's nature. (Gen 1:27)

When Christ took on our human nature, He showed us the glory that God sees in humanity. As St. John Paul put it:
Rightly therefore does the Second Vatican Council teach: "The truth is that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a type of him who was to come (Rom 5:14), Christ the Lord. Christ the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling". And the Council continues: "He who is the 'image of the invisible God' (Col 1:15), is himself the perfect man who has restored in the children of Adam that likeness to God which had been disfigured ever since the first sin. Human nature, by the very fact that is was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his Incarnation, he, the son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man. He worked with human hands, he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin"47, he, the Redeemer of man.

emphasis in the original
Redemptor hominis, section 8

In brief: When Christ took on human nature, He joined Himself with each one of us. God is showing us how much glory He sees in each, individual person.

So "trying to avoid giving any glory to Christ's human nature", due to a strict application of Sola Deo Gloria, would be a foolish thing for any Christian theologian to do.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18010
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by wosbald » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:04 am

+JMJ+
Cleon wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:52 am
wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:57 am
What I'm asking is, how does one isolate Christ's human-nature so as to ensure that it doesn't receive a single drop of glory?
That's a strange question, wos. I think the key is that one can't practically isolate Christ's human nature from his (Trinitarian) God nature. It's a mystery that we can only take so far. One can do it in thought, but that's not REAL. So, when Jesus the god-man is glorified so is the Trinity.

Oh, I see the Chalcedon question. You know, the Reformed come directly out of the RCC. We're creedal. As such, there is a lot of overlap. I'd submit that the context, concerning Chaldedon, is not as different as you think it is.
Sounds like you're saying that there's no way to insulate Christ's human-nature from sharing in the glory. That is, not without a creedal violation.

If so, careful. If you keep following this track, you'll soon find the Protestant barriers erected against Sacerdoto-Sacramentalism falling like dominoes.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Skip
Everything in Moderatoration
Everything in Moderatoration
Posts: 23816
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Slightly East of Pepik
Contact:

Re: The Five Solas

Post by Skip » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:12 am

wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:04 am
+JMJ+
Cleon wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:52 am
wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:57 am
What I'm asking is, how does one isolate Christ's human-nature so as to ensure that it doesn't receive a single drop of glory?
That's a strange question, wos. I think the key is that one can't practically isolate Christ's human nature from his (Trinitarian) God nature. It's a mystery that we can only take so far. One can do it in thought, but that's not REAL. So, when Jesus the god-man is glorified so is the Trinity.

Oh, I see the Chalcedon question. You know, the Reformed come directly out of the RCC. We're creedal. As such, there is a lot of overlap. I'd submit that the context, concerning Chaldedon, is not as different as you think it is.
Sounds like you're saying that there's no way to insulate Christ's human-nature from sharing in the glory. That is, not without a creedal violation.

If so, careful. If you keep following this track, you'll soon find the Protestant barriers erected against Sacerdoto-Sacramentalism falling like dominoes.
Is Wos actually attempting to "Seek first to understand, then to be understood" as opposed to Del's standard "Seek first to explain to others what they understand and keep repeating it until they just give up and agree"?
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 Winner of the CPS Award: "Most Likely to be Found Without Pants at Any Given Moment"

"No man is peer to Skip, peasant." -A_Morley

Post Reply