Mark Twain once quipped, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Ah statistics. They can be very helpful. Or very misleading. And much of it depends on how the questions are asked.
Last week it was announced that a new Pew foundation study demonstrated that modern Protestants are a lot less like Martin Luther and a lot more like Roman Catholics than people might think.
When it comes to the two main issues of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone) apparently Protestants aren’t so Protestant after all. The study conclusions state:
For example, nearly half of U.S. Protestants today (46%) say faith alone is needed to attain salvation (a belief held by Protestant reformers in the 16th century, known in Latin as sola fide). But about half (52%) say both good deeds and faith are needed to get into heaven, a historically Catholic belief.
U.S. Protestants also are split on another issue that played a key role in the Reformation: 46% say the Bible is the sole source of religious authority for Christians – a traditionally Protestant belief known as sola scriptura. Meanwhile, 52% say Christians should look both to the Bible and to the church’s official teachings and tradition for guidance, the position held by the Catholic Church during the time of the Reformation and today.
When these two questions are combined, the survey shows that just three-in-ten U.S. Protestants believe in both sola fide and sola scriptura.
These stats, if true, would certainly be stunning. Indeed, even depressing. And given the low-level of theological knowledge among most self-identified evangelicals, we might easily believe these stats are right on the mark.
But, I think there are reasons to doubt them. And those reasons are centered upon the very definition of sola scriptura and sola fide in the questions asked.
In this post, we will deal with sola scriptura. In the following post, we will address sola fide.
As for sola scriptura, the Pew study allows the reader to choose between two options:
1. Bible provides all religious guidance Christians need (sola scriptura).
2. In addition to Bible, Christians need guidance from Church teachings, traditions.
The problem, of course, is that option number 1 is not the Reformed view of sola scriptura! Indeed, the second view is much closer. The Reformers never argued Scripture was the only authority (that is a modern misunderstanding). Instead, they argued the Bible was the highest and only infallible authority.
Thus, the Reformers were quick to acknowledge the importance of the church’s teachings, the teachings of the Fathers, and particularly the creeds that came from the Church councils (e.g., Nicea and Chalcedon). These all bore authority–just not infallible authority. Only God’s word is infallible.
Simply put, most evangelicals should have picked #2 (given just these two choices).
To highlight the problem, here’s the way the question should have been asked:
1. Bible is the highest and only infallible authority. The teachings of the church and ecumenical councils are important and bear real authority. But they are not infallible. Their teachings must always submit to Scripture.
2. Bible is not the highest authority. The pope and church tradition have an equal authority to the Bible. And the pope and church tradition are infallible and cannot err. Moreover, the Church determines what writings count as the Bible in the first place. The Bible’s authority is dependent on the Church’s.
If the questions had been asked in this manner–a manner that accurately reflects the historical positions of each group–then I am convinced the survey would have led to a wildly different result.
Few evangelicals would be comfortable with the idea of an infallible church. Many more would be comfortable with an infallible Bible.
I will address sola fide in part two.
John Bugay says
Dr Kruger — You may have missed out on a promising career as a statistician!
John Bugay says
Dr Kruger — You may have missed out on a promising career as a statistician!
g says
“The Reformers never argued Scripture was the only authority (that is a modern misunderstanding). Instead, they argued the Bible was the highest and only infallible authority.”
Not buying your assertion here as such a view would seem to undermine much of what actually occurred throughout the Reformation period. Please explain further.
Rich says
Kruger’s statement “[the] Bible is the highest and only infallible authority. The teachings of the church and ecumenical councils are important and bear real authority. But they are not infallible. Their teachings must always submit to Scripture, explains what he means. The reformers quoted church councils and the teachings of the church fathers as well as medieval theologians. However, their views were not on the same level as Holy Scripture. The reformers may have agreed with the views of councils or theologians, but only Scripture was the final authority.
Anne says
Mark Twain did popularize the statement of Benjamin Disraeli.
Disraeli is quoted in basic statistics books.
I enjoy reading your writings.
Dean says
Dr Kruger, thanks for being like a Berean & looking into the pew study, investigating it & passing on your insight.
In some/maybe many churches today, even professed confessional churches, the main message is: as long as you believe in Jesus, the other stuff doesn’t matter so much, leave it up to the minister, put your trust in him. In this sense I see a similarity with Roman Catholicism (from what I know of it).
In effect the minister or leadership directs the ministry of the Word & dictates what does & doesn’t matter. All those years of defending the faith of forefathers & mothers & children seem to be fading away. Elders that lack confidence in God or the Word & tend to follow the minister probably shouldn’t have been elected in the first place but it doesn’t always pan out that way.
Yet church councils & courts are steeped in tradition & legalistic framework that requires lawyer like knowledge to challenge the status quo. The Christian church often speaks of family (& it is) but you can easily be treated as an outsider & an enemy for speaking out in good conscience or wanting to know a bit more.
David King says
The helpful Latin phrases employed to distinguish Scripture from other norms (e.g. confessions, catechisms, creeds) are useful here. Scripture alone is the norm that norms but is not normed by any other standard (Sola Scriptura est norma normans non normata), because only Scripture is θεόπνευστος (God-breathed), while creeds, confessions, and catechisms are “norms that are normed” (norma normata) by Scripture. While Protestant confessional standards are regarded as “norms that are normed” (norma normata), historically they have never been regarded as irreformable norms or ultimate standards (non normata).
Ben says
This is very interesting. I’m curious why the pew researchers picked that wording for this question. It seems that’s it’s almost leading, or intentionally misleading to those taking the survey.
Stephen Goranson says
Mark Twain claimed that Disraeli made this statement about statistics, but does it not appear in any of his works. Nor, apparently, did it appear during Disraeli’s lifetime. For more information on who actually did say this, see:
https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm
Joseph T. Richardson says
“The pope and church tradition have an equal authority to the Bible” is not an accurate statement of Catholic doctrine, either. The poll sought to determine if Protestants actually believed traditional Protestant doctrine. Replacing one misstatement with another is not helpful.
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Joseph. But you are the one who is mistaken. Rome has been very clear about this. Dei Verbum 2:9:
Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.
Bill Schuck, Jr. says
Amen!
Joseph T. Richardson says
Thanks for the response, Michael. I know Dei Verbum, too. Again I would argue that your claim is inaccurate. “Both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence” is not an equivalent statement to “The pope and church tradition have an equal authority to the Bible.” Neither the pope nor the Magisterium is said, in either the passage you quote or elsewhere, to have “an equal authority” or even the “same sense of loyalty and reverence” as Scripture. Where the Magisterium (which includes the pope) is mentioned in Dei Verbum, the opposite statement is made: “[The] teaching office [of the Church] is not above the word of God, but serves it” (10).
So in your statement you are making the Magisterium equivalent in authority to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, rather than their servant. There is often talk, even in Catholic presentations of these three, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church, forming a “tripod,” such that they “are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others” (DV 10) — but the “tripod” analogy only goes so far as to present that the three are dependent on one another (Scripture and Tradition requiring an interpreter) and the claim is never made that they each are “equal in authority.”
Another thing I would add: there’s a fundamental difference between “church tradition,” that is, any teaching that has been handed down in the Church, and Sacred Tradition (which is properly capitalized, as it is the original Latin of Dei Verbum; I don’t know why it’s not in this English translation), the actual words and teachings of Jesus handed down in the Church, of which the New Testament is a subset. Sacred Tradition is a specific, technical term, referring to tradition originating from Jesus Himself. Surely you would admit that if teachings of Jesus beyond what is recorded in Scripture had been confidently preserved and handed down, those teachings would quite literally be the Word of God and “to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence” as Scripture. To equate any old “church tradition” to the authority of Scripture is simply false, and again, an inaccurate statement of Catholic teaching.
Nathan says
Another fantastic article by Dr. Kruger and very ken insight.
The wording of the original Pew questions sounds like it was worded by a Roman Catholic apologist. This is exactly the way in which they misrepresent Sola Scriptura. Often it is caricatured as SOLO Scriptura rather then SOLA Scriptura.
Matthias Lohmann says
Dr Kruger:
As I read the PEW question, the question “1. Bible provides all religious guidance Christians need (sola scriptura).” doesn’t state “only authority”.
This statement seems to refer to the sufficiency of Scripture – a doctrine that I would think the reformers beleived and taught but which is certainly not the same as “sola scriptura”.
So I would agree that the PEW question was purely phrased (if I may say so as a non-Native speaker) but I would actually hope that most Evangelicals would affirm the sufficiency of Scripture.
With much gratitude for your ministry,
Matthias
Andy says
For the sake of argument, as a Protestant who is being drawn to Catholicism; if Sola Scriptura is such a defining issue for us…then why so many variants of our Protestant tribe? It seems that we have Sola Scriptura’d ourselves into some pretty deep divisions.
Athanasius says
Question: if Scripture is the “highest and only infallible authority,” wouldn’t that entail that Scripture needs an infallible interpreter, particularly when differentiating between “essential” and “non-essential” doctrine, and what role (or whether or not they play a role!) in our salvation? Given that each Christian has the Holy Spirit, and that God is not the author of division and chaos, why are there such wildly varying interpretations of topics like Communion (whether or not transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or a memorialist view are true), baptism, etc? How do you account for this?
Lois Westerlund says
Isn’t there a statement about the sufficiency of scripture in the WCF? Something about their containing all things necessary to faith and practice? I certainly thought the Reformers proclaimed the sufficiency of Scripture
Don Maurer says
The point that dr Kruger makes is well taken. The way the question is made affects the answer. However, I have a diffferent question about the poll… who are the so called prostents being polled?
Don Maurer says
Sorry for typos. I am bad at typing on the cell
David King says
Andy said, “For the sake of argument, as a Protestant who is being drawn to Catholicism; if Sola Scriptura is such a defining issue for us…then why so many variants of our Protestant tribe? It seems that we have Sola Scriptura’d ourselves into some pretty deep divisions.”
Andy, for the sake of argument, if the Roman communion is the defining issue for them, then why so many variants of the Roman tribe? It seems that that they have Romanized themselves into some pretty deep divisions, unless unity is defined purely on paper, or by an empty claim to the contrary?
Andy says
I suppose the point is that Sola Scriptura as it is typically applied in Protestantism means different things to different denominations. Therefore leaving the absolute authority of Scripture being left to individual interpretation. We have a couple thousand different Protestant denominations looking to their individual popes (pastors, elders, association presidents, seminary deans) to give them a final “say” on any given doctrinal issue. While the RCC is NOT without its faults, at least it attempts to provide some semblance of a structure of authority.
David King says
Well, I suppose that the point is that what is termed “Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the magisterium,” as it is typically applied by members of the Roman communion, means different things to different members of the same, therefore leaving absolute authority to the interpretation of each member of the Roman communion. Having interacted with many of them, I know this to be true. You have every member of the Roman communion interpreting ecclesial, magisterial documents differently, and thus looking to their own interpretation of papal or magisterial statements with ultimate authority. Yes, I will agree, the Roman communion does provide “some semblance of a structure of authority,” but I fail to see the advantage implied for the reason I’ve indicated. If it is, as another poster suggests above, that every “infallible” document needs an “infallible” and authoritative human interpretation, then again I fail to see the advantage suggested. Hence, members of the Roman communion, remained confused about “infallible” ecclesial documents that each one interprets for him/herself.
Dean says
(I struggle with that too, but am no way inclined to think of Roman Catholicism as if that would change anything for the better). So are you going for semblance of structure of authority or like Luther, some semblance of Scripture. Even Paul challenged Peter because of the Gospel & divisions are part & parcel of defending the truth.
………
In the individual popes thing that is true to a point & some ministers are overly worldly or overly infatuated by their heroes or their bachelor of divinity or themselves or whatever as denominations allow variations & differences that don’t seem to be driven by the Holy Spirit with factions & the like (present in the early church too) but are nevertheless in the hands of God’s sovereignty, providence, discipline & sanctifying work.
If only it were easier but it’s not at times. Psalm 23. What a life of ups & downs did David have as a child & eventual king.
If the Word is not central then other things take over & distort.
Andy Merriman says
Dean, no Catholicism is not the answer to all my concerns with the church nor have I converted. Not Faith, certainly not Christ nor the Authority of Scripture, just the state of the Protestant church in general. We need a sense of reverence. We need the peace of communion more often than quarterly. We need history that reaches beyond Martin Luther and his glorious Reformation. I’m done with coffee in the sanctuary (I’m speaking in generalities), with our posture when worshiping (physical and mental). I’ve had it with light-hearted feel good nonsense. And before anyone tells me that there are other churches and other forms of worship, I have two response. 1) That has been precisely my point. Go where it “feels” right. Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide means absolutely nothing to 99.9% of those attending your church this weekend. Guaranteed. 2) I now live in the Charlotte Metro area for the second time in a decade. I have lived in 3 different states in that time and visited and have been a member of a number of different churches and denominations. I understand that there are traditional and contemporary versions of everything. I know that Christ will unify His church and that all of our errors will be corrected, but for me, playtime is over and the mamby-pamby run of Christians in this country for the last 100 years has got to end and First Baptist (fill in the blank) or Mercy, or Grace, or Transformation, or whatever Church and their coffee ministry and small group baloney is a fools errand that has no future.
Dean says
In one way we should move on from Luther & probably have (to feel good stuff, gimmicks & the like as does western culture) & in another we should extol his stand or protest.
I think it was a fairly recent article by Kevin De Young on Calvin that got into when he preached & the nature of the congregations then that were pretty wild & loud. So in some sense I think there is a reverence & sense of worship in modern churches that is more “civilised” & “complex”.
But the simplification of sermons & the lack of doctrinal instruction & the ministry of coffee or chocolate or motorbikes or whatever indicates to me that many things are back to front. I was told by an elder recently that they wanted to shape sermons according to people who hardly come to church. And in the mess God continues to work as only He can & I am confident that “his purposes will ripen fast, unfolding every hour.” (Cowper)
We live in Australia & have known a few denominations & congregations within denominations over the years. Our situation is maybe not as bizarre(for me) as in the US with its massive size & diversity of people & culture but we do share certain similarities as the global village intermingles all the more.
Just as a short comment on the threads below, I tend to agree that many Christians are
Roman Catholic even though what they believe (or what their church teaches) may be error in terms of doctrine & the interpretation of Scripture.
It is good to share stuff at times.
Bill Schuck, Jr. says
Andy, how can a Christian become a Roman Catholic? I presume that you are trusting the merits of Jesus Christ wholly for your salvation.
Rome is a false church who still states that for anyone to say that they are trusting on the mercy and grace of Christ alone for eternal,life is a “SIN of presumption”!
Andy Merriman says
Mr. Schuck, to claim that a Catholic is not a Christian is a significant overreach which has been vigorously opposed by many Protestant leaders. The assumption that they are not Christian is to assume that you (or your particular denomination) is 100% doctrinally accurate, which I can assure you that is not the case. Put Luther and Calvin in a room for 4 hours and then let’s watch the divisions arise. They wouldn’t be fundamental divisions but I’d love to hear the discussion about the canon, or baptism. Put a Pentecostal and a Presbyterian in another room and they will each walk out convinced the other is hell-bound. The crux of the blog post by our host was in response to a Pew survey that seemed to ask loaded questions to arrive at a predetermined end. I don’t disagree that the questions on the survey were cumbersome; however I don not believe that our host would concur with the assertion that Catholics are reprobates. The question at hand is, “are Protestants closer to Catholics than we think?”. I believe that we are despite some doctrinal divisions. Was every Catholic 499 years, 10 months and 15 days ago going to hell? No. A resounding no. Did Luther bring salvation into this world. No. Was every faithful church member from the Wittenberg door on nailed to a door like the 95 theses? It can’t be. And if infuriates me when Christians consign other Christians to chains of gloomy darkness due to historical controversies. And yes, while the doctrinal divisions were real, most of this nonsense for the last 500 years has been tribal and political.
Bill Schuck, Jr. says
Andy, I believe that you reversed my statement. If any person in the unbiblical position of Rome, regarding justification their destination is the second death – hell, no matter what denomination that they may belong.
Personally, I am not aware of any “believer” who states that baptism is necessary for salvation. Once again, when Rome teaches that when any individual confesses that he now has eternal life and has the glorious hope of meeting his Savior because of faith in Christ alone that this is a “sin”, according to their heirarchy.
There is no propitiation, according to Rome, although they would state otherwise. The crucifixion of the sinless, Son of God, has infinite value from the infinite God/man. They call for an added temporal punishment. Salvation must be earned because Jesus death was “not sufficient”! Somehoe the Father was not totally satisfied. It apparently was not enough! Blasphemy!
Infant baptism is only the beginning of an extended process. Rome actually states that whenever an infant is baptized that he becomes “born-again” through this ceremony.
So Andy, I guess that my question to you would be, “what” determines who is a Christian? “How” does one become a Christian?
David King says
Andy wrote: “…to claim that a Catholic is not a Christian is a significant overreach which has been vigorously opposed by many Protestant leaders. The assumption that they are not Christian is to assume that you (or your particular denomination) is 100% doctrinally accurate, which I can assure you that is not the case. Put Luther and Calvin in a room for 4 hours and then let’s watch the divisions arise.”
1. That is very interesting given the fact that Calvin expressed gratitude approvingly for Luther time and time again. Methinks you protest too much.
2. Are you really familiar with the position of the communion of Rome historically? The Council of Florence (1441) declared in the Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; “It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic [read Roman communion] Church.” This bull has been designated as an ex cathedra pronouncement. See Henry Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, #714, p. 230.
Moreover, the pronouncement of Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, Unam Sanctam (1302) reads, “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Again, this is designated as an ex cathedra pronouncement.
Now granted, more liberal modern-day popes have contradicted these papal bulls, which carried the weight of “infallibility” each in its day, it have never been officially repudiated by the communion of Rome. And modern day Roman apologists, by means of private judgment, pick and choose what papal bulls and/or conciliar statements they want to believe, while those with which they disagree die the death of a thousand qualifications.
So please don’t think that there are no hardcore members of the Roman communion who believe Protestants are on their way to hell. So again, methinks you protest too much.
Andy Merriman says
Oh, I’m abundantly aware that there are Catholics that believe Protestants are hell-bound. I too have read the encyclicals consigning all Sola Fide ‘s to hell. I never indicated I didn’t. Therefore I stand by my adamant objection to one Christian declaring another as categorically reprobate. Methinks you don’t protest enough.
David King says
Andy, I’m not the professing protestant here claiming “being drawn to” what you call “catholicism,” but in reality is Romanism. Based upon my own studies, I share the sentiments of John Owen, who said, “The very name of Roman Catholic, appropriating Catholicism to Romanism, is destructive of all gospel unity.” See The Works of John Owen, Animadversions on a Treatise Entitled Fiat Lux, ed. William H. Goold, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, Third printing, 1977), vol. XIV, p. 93.
Thus I cannot in good faith attribute the term “catholic” to Rome. You have a perspective that I do not share, for I know of nothing more destructive of catholicity than the communion of Rome.
Andy Merriman says
I’ve read Owen, and I’ve never looked at it from that perspective. Good point.
Bill Schuck, Jr. says
Andy, so do you believe that it is necessary to be baptized for salvation or how does one become a Christian? Also, if you might answer, how could the vicarious atonement of the eternal Son of God, not cover all of your sins?
Andy Merriman says
There is NO doubt that Christ alone has covered me from start to finish. He, and He alone covers me and my faith in Him has attoned. Solely. His work accomplishes my salvation. I will be shocked if that doesn’t satisfy your curiosity. But I cannot abide that the divisions are so deep nor that we are so confident in those divisions to render judgement that one or the other are saved. For arguments sake, of 50% of all Christians are Catholic and the other 50% Protestant who’s right if we’ve both written the other off. I think that the P’s and the C’s are closer than we think if we will let go of historical and political divisions and if the P’s would Man up and drop the effimanat nonsense that has so defined it over the last 25 years.
Andy Merriman says
I also typed that on my phone…forgive the typos
Bill Schuck, Jr. says
Andy, unity for the sake of unity is dompromise at any level. If an individual believes that “only” his past sins are forgiven and that any later sins need penance, sacraments, etc. then there is a “major” and in no way minor difference.
Is it Biblical to believe that you can somehow commit a so-called mortal sin that if left undone than you can spend eternity in hell? Whom are they trusting?
Propitiation? Baptism? How does one become a Christian?
Andy, there are other cults besides Rome that call themselves Christian, so we should all be one because we have some things in common?
David King says
Often today, we hear and/or read of people on the internet who profess to be struggling with the decision of what communion/church with which they should unite. Well, in Chrysostom’s day, there were, to be sure, different factions of Christianity in Antioch where he preached. Interestingly enough, he poses the following scenario; namely that of a heathen/pagan who wishes to become a Christian, but is confused over which church to join. Notice carefully what advice Chrysostom offers – it might surprise you. Please read what he says carefully.
Chrysostom (349-407): What then shall we say to the heathen? There comes a heathen and says, “I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?” How shall we answer him? “Each of you” (says he) “asserts, ‘I speak the truth.’” (b) No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule. (a) “But which am I to believe, knowing as I do nothing at all of the Scriptures? The others also allege the same thing for themselves. What then (c) if the other come, and say that the Scripture has this, and you that it has something different, and ye interpret the Scriptures diversely, dragging their sense (each his own way)?” And you then, I ask, have you no understanding, no judgment? “And how should I be able (to decide),” says he, “I who do not even know how to judge of your doctrines? I wish to become a learner, and you are making me forthwith a teacher.” If he say this, what, say you, are we to answer him? How shall we persuade him? Let us ask whether all this be not mere pretence and subterfuge. . . . “There is inch a multitude of men, and they have different doctrines; this a heathen, that a Jew, the other a Christian: no need to accept any doctrine whatever, for they are at variance one with another; but I am a learner, and do not wish to be a judge” — but if you have yielded (so far as) to pronounce against (καταγινώσκειν) one doctrine, this pretext no longer has place for you. For just as you were able to reject the spurious, so here also, having come, you shall be able to prove what is profitable. For he that has not pronounced against any doctrine at all, may easily say this: but he that has pronounced against any, though he have chosen none, by going on in the same way, will be able to see what he ought to do. Then let us not make pretexts and excuses, and all will be easy. For, to show you that all this is mere excuse, answer me this: Do you know what you ought to do, and what to leave undone? Then why do you not what you ought? Do that, and by right reason seek of God, and He will assuredly reveal it to thee. NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33.
David King says
“I think that the P’s and the C’s are closer than we think if we will let go of historical and political divisions and if the P’s would Man up and drop the effimanat nonsense that has so defined it over the last 25 years.”
If this is truly your underlining presupposition, then I understand how such reductionism simplifies your struggle.
Andy Merriman says
Well, you can disregard that last comment. The spelling alone is embarrassing enough; not to mention the knee-jerk inclusion of something not related to this discussion. Note to self: don’t respond on my phone after arriving home from my son’s football game.
PeterC says
The more I read the Bible, the more I come to the conclusion that although salvation comes from grace, good works are very important. I think there are too many evangelicals who think little about being a ‘good’ person in this world (ie be a decent human being to others), but rather rest on their laurels because they have ‘faith’. It might sound strange, but sometimes I think ‘grace’ and ‘faith’ have been over emphasized.