Skip to main content

The Five Solas – why they are still important today (Part 4)

 


I had recently become a Christian and was travelling with a group of my new friends to something called Spring Harvest. They were excited about this week away in Lincolnshire and assured me it would be life changing. I thought to myself, can my life really be changed by a week in Skegness? But they were right.

It was during that week that I heard two men speak, both of whom I had never heard of before. I hung on their every word, and when one of them asked those who would like to give all in following Christ, I rushed to the front. The names of these men were Steve Chalke and Tony Campolo.

I cannot recall anything Steve Chalke said that week, and very little of what Tony Campolo said, apart from his stories (he is a master storyteller), but I do remember leaving Skegness believing both men to be giants of my new found faith.

Today, I wouldn’t see them as such. At best, I would consider them to be believers who have veered from Biblical truth, and that they are now purveyors of falsehood. Why would I say such a thing? Because of sola Scriptura.

Scripture exhorts us to test everything; hold fast what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). We must hold up every teaching to the light of Scripture. If a teaching cannot be found in, or supported by, the Word of God, it must be rejected.

When the Reformers tested Roman Catholic doctrine and Papal Decrees against Scripture, they immediately denounced Romanism as false, as heretical. The Reformers wasted no time in forcefully condemning any teaching not clearly found in Scripture.

Their words, spoken of against the Pope and Rome, would sound very ‘unloving’ to twenty first century ears. The words of Thomas Cranmer, the English Reformer and sixteenth century Archbishop of Canterbury, is typical of the language they used:

"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons."1

We would not find so stinging a condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church from the current incumbent of Canterbury, in fact we would probably find the complete opposite. Is that because the Roman Catholic Church has changed? Not at all, but the Protestant churches and their leaders, as if suffering from some form of historical and spiritual amnesia, have forgotten the price paid by Reformers for standing solidly on the principle of ‘sola Scriptura’.

If they were alive today would Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, Knox and the like, now embrace the Pope and the teachings – absolutely not! The Roman Catholic Church may now call Protestants ‘separated brethren’2 rather than ‘heretics’, but its doctrine has not changed one iota since the Reformation.

Indeed they have added even more extra-biblical teachings to those alreadydeemed ‘devilish’ by the Reformers.

This is one of the reasons why the five solas are still needed today but sadly, it is not the only reason. Much of the modern day Protestant church has forgotten the Reformation battle cry of sola Scriptura. Sure many would claim a belief in sola Scriptura, it may even be found on their websites as part of their statement of faith, but in practice this key doctrine would be either subverted or denied.

This has lead to widespread falsehood and heretical teachings within the church, and opened up the way for countless cults to claim that they are the ‘true’ Christians.

I am convinced that it was never the intention of the Reformers to bring about the situation the church finds itself in today, in fact I believe they would be horrified. So what can be done about it?

My first thought is that the job is too big, that we have gone so far away from sola Scriptura, from Biblical truth, that not only can I not see a light at the end of the tunnel, I cannot see the tunnel! But then this is surely how the Reformers must have felt when faced with the all pervading power and might of the Roman Catholic Church.

We, like Luther before the Diet of Worms, need to say: ‘Here I stand I can do no other… God help me’3; and assert as he did that his ‘conscience is captive to the Word of God and to go against conscience is neither right nor safe’.4

Friends it’s a big job, but we have a big God. For our part let us remain faithful to all that God has revealed to us through his unchanging, infallible Word an in asserting and declaring sola Scriptura, we affirm sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus and soli deo gloria.

Over the next few weeks, I will take a look at how the forsaking of sola Scriptura has allowed two groups in particular to flourish within modern mainstream Christianity; and why sola Scriptura should be the weapon of choice when fighting against falsehood in the church, and against the heresy of the cults.





1 Works by Cranmer, vol.1, pp.6-7

2 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36409

3 https://www.sjsu.edu/people/james.lindahl/courses/Hum1B/s3/Luther-Speech-Worms-1521.pdf

4 Ibid


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent

The Mormon God’s Dysfunctional Family

You know those moments when you look at something you’ve looked at a thousand times before and suddenly see something new? I was looking at a blog I found via the Google Blog Alerts service and it told the familiar story of the Mormon “ Plan of Salvation”; you can read it here. There really was nothing surprising until I started thinking about what people might think if a family they knew conducted themselves the way the Mormon “family of God” do in this story. People from abusive backgrounds have problems enough with the idea of God as a Father but this story would put anyone off the idea forever! As I recount this story think about what the typical dad would do as his kids are growing up and compare it with this “exalted man.” According to Mormonism “ God created our spirits” and we lived with him in a pre-mortal existence (Mormons say “pre-existence” but it is not possible to pre-exist, i.e. to exist before you exist. The noun “existence” has to be have the prefix “pre” othe