Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura...is there a difference?

Solo scriptura is, according to Mathison, an unbiblical position; proponents of sola scriptura should uphold the claim that Scripture is the only infallible authority, but should repudiate any position according to which individual Christians are the ultimate arbiters of Scriptural truth. In this article we argue that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority, and that a return to apostolic succession is the only way to avoid the untoward consequences to which both solo scriptura and sola scriptura lead."

Click to expand...

Rick Otto said:

Sola doesn't lead to untoward anything.
Wrong interpretation leads to untoward consequences.
All ultimate authority belongs to God.
I interpret EVERYthing for myself because I will be held accountable, not some lackey cleric that the established authority structure can disassociate itself from instantly at the first scent of controversy.

Click to expand...

You said that better than could


.

Ortho_Cat said:

"According to Keith Mathison, over the last one hundred and fifty years Evangelicalism has replaced sola scriptura, according to which Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority, with solo scriptura, the notion that Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. The direct implication of solo scriptura is that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority.

Solo scriptura is, according to Mathison, an unbiblical position; proponents of sola scriptura should uphold the claim that Scripture is the only infallible authority, but should repudiate any position according to which individual Christians are the ultimate arbiters of Scriptural truth.


In this article we argue that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura

Click to expand...

I agree with that much of the OP - each person must decide for themselves.

And the Bible is the final authority on all doctrine and practice.

Mark 7:6-13 is true.

So also Acts 17:11

And they both affirm the sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and practice - individually - priesthood of all believers etc.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan said:

I agree with that much of the OP - each person must decide for themselves.

And the Bible is the final authority on all doctrine and practice.

Mark 7:6-13 is true.

So also Acts 17:11

And they both affirm the sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and practice - individually - priesthood of all believers etc.

in Christ,

Bob

Click to expand...

If we are all priests, who would be the laity?

1:6
and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Rev 5:10
And have made usfn kings and priests to our God;
And wefn shall reign on the earth.”





.

All together now...

"From the presence of the Zombie Thread, Good Lord deliver us."

Albion said:

All together now...

"From the presence of the Zombie Thread, Good Lord deliver us."

Click to expand...

:amen
45 pages discussing lo and la. I don't think it's scripture but I do recall a song by the Kinks named LOLA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVXmMMSo47s

Dylan Michael said:

I always though that Solo Scriptura was just bad grammar.

Click to expand...

Just a difference in 2 vowels...........




.

BobRyan said:

I agree with that much of the OP - each person must decide for themselves.

And the Bible is the final authority on all doctrine and practice.

Mark 7:6-13 is true.

So also Acts 17:11

And they both affirm the sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and practice - individually - priesthood of all believers etc.

in Christ,

Bob

Click to expand...

If all believing Christians are Priests, which ones would be the Laity?

Hebrews 7:12
For being changed/translated/metatiqemenhV<3346> (5746) the Priesthood,
out of necessity also, of Law a change/metaqesiV <3331> is becoming

Revelation 5:10
And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth."

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/priest/RP24.htm

In Genesis, chapter fourteen, we have one of the most intriguing stories in the Bible, that of Abram's encounter with Melchizedek, king of Salem, and "the priest of the Most High God." In the Genesis story Melchizedek is a strange and mysterious figure. He flashes across the scene like a meteor. There is no heralding of his appearance, nor any mention of its results. He arrives out of the blue; there is no account of his family; there is nothing about his birth, his descent, his life, his work, or his death. He simply arrives.

One of the most intriguing descriptions of the unique character of the High Priesthood of Jesus is found in Heb. 7:17 wherein it is stated, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This one grand statement shows that Jesus is not like any of the other priests who the people of Israel knew so much about. The entire seventh chapter of Hebrews is about THE MELCHIZEDEK CONNECTION,


.

I know this has been mentioned a million times already and this thread is old, but seriously! It's just bad grammar! Sola scriptura is correct, and solo scriptura is incorrect. I've studied Latin, ancient Greek, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, German, Hebrew, etc. (I love languages), so understand where I'm coming from. I'm your friendly neighborhood grammar cop.

That is true solo scriptura is bad grammar but I think the "intent" or the "spirit" of the title was that the Bible is the standard of measure against which all doctrine and practice and tradition must be judged - but that does not mean that the Bible is the only inspired source.

But that's exactly what sola scriptura means. Solo and sola mean the same exact thing. I guess solo is used now since the author feels sola's meaning is no longer known or felt.

Kuraisto said:

But that's exactly what sola scriptura means. Solo and sola mean the same exact thing.

Click to expand...

The terminology, apart from the origins of the words or the precise meaning of each word taken separately, have totally different meanings, however.

And because this is another zombie thread that should have stayed deceased, let's allow it to R.I.P.!

CaliforniaJosiah said:

The Definition:

The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is called in epistemology, as we examine and evaluate the positions (especially doctrines) among us.

Here is the official, historic definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (ditto, 3).

Click to expand...

That quote is good. It aligns with what I was taught when I took an online theology course through one of the biggest seminaries in the US. The basic idea of Sola Scriptura, which is talked about above, comes down to this historic statement: norma normans sed non normata (a norm of norms which is not normed). It means that scripture is considered to be the norm (standard/rule/measure/judge) for all dogmas or theologies, and that, therefore, no dogma or theology can norm scripture. In other words, scripture is considered to be the “final” or “highest” or “end” authority when it comes to dogma or theology.

Sola Scripturists would agree with what Gregory of Nyssa says from his work On the Holy Trinity: “Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”

The practice of Sola Scriptura does not allow for any “umpire” of dogma or theology beyond or above the Scriptures.

What Sola Scriptura does NOT indicate:
A. that there are or aren't other sources of ecclesial authority
B. whether those sources can or can't be infallible
C. how interpretation of the scriptures is achieved
D. what value tradition does or does not have

It is nothing more than an allegiance to scripture as the greatest judge of any dogma or theology.

SOLO Scriptura as a practice is a movement WITHIN Sola Scriptura that seeks to limit all other sources of authority. However, the point of both is the same: scripture is the norm of norms which is not normed. A Solo Scripturalist, therefore, is still a Sola Scripturalist. It is simply a particular kind of Sola Scripturalist.

Ortho_Cat said:

According to Keith Mathison, over the last one hundred and fifty years Evangelicalism has replaced sola scriptura, according to which Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority, with solo scriptura, the notion that Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. The direct implication of solo scriptura is that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority.

Click to expand...

Here are the problems with that statement:

1. A Solo Scripturalist is a kind of Sola Scripturalist. Both practice Sola Scriptura: that scripture is the norm that cannot be normed. Therefore, it is not possible to replace one with the other.

2. Sola Scriptura does not, on its own, indicate anything about “infallibility” or “ecclesial authority.” It is quite possible for a Sola Scripturalist to say “I think the scriptures are full of errors, yet I acknowledge them as the sole and final authority for dogma and theology.” It is also quite possible for a Sola Scripturalist to say “I think the Pope of Rome is gifted with infallibile ecclesial authority.” Again, the point of Sola Scriptura is that scripture is the norm that cannot be normed. So long as an infallible ecclesial authority doesn't try to norm scripture, there is no conflict.

3. In terms of dogma and theology, the implication of Solo Scriptura CANNOT be that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority because all Solo Scripturalists practice Sola Scriptura: that SCRIPTURE is the ultimate judge/measure/rule for dogma and theology. Solo Scripturals merely limit other sources of authority, they do not negate the practice of making scripture the norm that cannot be normed.

Please note: despite what I have written above, I do not, myself, practice Sola Scriptura. I do believe that scripture is a norm—but not a norm that cannot be normed. To give one example: when people say that God commanded the slaying of men, women, children, infants, and animals in the Old Testament, I say, “yes, that's what scripture says, but that is not what God wanted—that is Israelite propaganda as bad as anything ISIS has released, and not something God would have ever written. Therefore, I do not acknowledge it as normative for dogma or theology.” Note that what makes me a non-Sola Scripturalist is that last sentence (Therefore, I do not acknowledge it as normative for dogma or theology). Techincally, a Sola Scripturalist could agree with everything I said up to that point (though you would be hard-pressed to find ones that did).

Kuraisto said:

I know this has been mentioned a million times already and this thread is old, but seriously! It's just bad grammar! Sola scriptura is correct, and solo scriptura is incorrect. I've studied Latin, ancient Greek, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, German, Hebrew, etc. (I love languages), so understand where I'm coming from. I'm your friendly neighborhood grammar cop.

Click to expand...

Heh, funny that someone should study so much language and have no idea that language is based on its usage, not on grammar. What was "bad grammar" 50 years ago might be "good grammar" today. And at any point in time, what some people might consider "bad grammar" can be considered by others, speaking the same language, at the same time, as "good grammar." Because language is constantly changing and grammars are by no means static or monolithic.

I know this not because I've just studied many languages (English, Spanish, German, Greek, Hebrew, Phoenician, Ugaritic, etc), but because I've studied the same languages over many time periods. So, for instance, I've studied Hebrew as it exists in Epigraphic Texts and in Classical Biblical texts (between 900 and 550-ish BC), as it exists in Post-exilic Biblical texts (after 539 BC), as it exists in the texts from Qumran (between about 250 BC and AD 100), as it exists in Samaritan Hebrew (after about 120 BC), and as it exists in Mishnaic Hebrew (after about AD 200). And what I've come to realize is that the grammars for all these different forms of Hebrew is actually an artificial construct because at any point in time, what is considered "bad grammar" by one of them might be in operation and might be accepted by its hearers or readers. Thus, for example, Qohelet (also known by its Greek name Ecclesiastes) is written in both Late Biblical Hebrew - the kind of Hebrew that only came into documented use after the exile - AND in Mishnaic Hebrew - the kind of Hebrew that only came into full documented use by the time of the Mishnah. Many parts of the grammar of Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) would be considered bad biblical grammar - yet Qohelet is a biblical book. And, by the time of Jesus, its "bad grammar" would have been considered quite normal and, instead, its "biblical grammar" would have been considered "bad grammar" because, by the time of Jesus, "biblical grammar" was outdated even though it was still mimicked (by the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance).

Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura...is there a difference?

Ortho_Cat said:

"According to Keith Mathison, over the last one hundred and fifty years Evangelicalism has replaced sola scriptura, according to which Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority, with solo scriptura, the notion that Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. The direct implication of solo scriptura is that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority.

Solo scriptura is, according to Mathison, an unbiblical position; proponents of sola scriptura should uphold the claim that Scripture is the only infallible authority, but should repudiate any position according to which individual Christians are the ultimate arbiters of Scriptural truth. In this article we argue that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority, and that a return to apostolic succession is the only way to avoid the untoward consequences to which both solo scriptura and sola scriptura lead."

Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority | Called to Communion

Read and discuss!

Click to expand...

Ortho_Cat said:

Well yes, I want to discuss the difference between sola and solo, and whether there is any fundamental difference at all between the two. I would also like to discuss the right to individual interpretation, and how this relates to both as well.

What can I say, i've just been in an SS kind of mood lately...

Click to expand...

I suppose I am in the "solo scriptura" group......Bible only...........

.

Rick Otto said:

I thought the difference was "Solo" referred to scripture as the only source of truth & that "Sola" meant that it was not the only source, but the only "rule" or reliable calibrator of truth, regardless of the source.

Click to expand...

That is the meaning some put into the male vs female gender of the word.

The Bible does not teach that God never gave a message to any prophet but those that wrote the Bible as we see in the case of Nathan, Agabus and all those in 1Cor 14, Philip's 4 daughters, Deborah etc None of whom wrote any part of the Bible -all of whom claimed to have direct messages from God.

So that means that "Sola Scriptura" would argue that the role of prophets is defined by the Bible - but the Bible definition of it does not limit prophets to "only those that write the Bible".

Hence my statement "Give me the Bible AND the words IN the Bible" because all "Have" Bibles - but what the Bible teaches is not - what some have supposed. So then we have "sola" and "solo" as ideas to kick around - but when you look at what the Bible says on the subject - it begins to expand a bit.

Rick Otto said:

I thought the difference was "Solo" referred to scripture as the only source of truth & that "Sola" meant that it was not the only source, but the only "rule" or reliable calibrator of truth, regardless of the source.

Click to expand...

That's right. I'd put it a little differently and say that Sola means the Bible is the final authority for essential doctrine. It does not rule out using reason or experience, etc. as a help in understanding Scripture, and it doesn't mean that there is not truth of some sort (but not essential to salvation) to be found elsewhere.

Solo is derived from that, and stipulates that there is nothing the church or we Christians are free to do or believe UNLESS it is found in the Bible.

I believe that God set the bible down for those who have hard hearts and who can not but depend upon some secondary authority, i.e. the bread that God gives as opposed to the lips of his mouth that we are told by Jesus to live by. so since so many of Gods people want to play the games that they play, the Holy Spirit saw it good to teach many of his saints to so enforce utilizing the scriptures as a source of spiritual contemplation. and I tell you, what a genius God is, because we have such a rich tradition of the Holy bible now, it truly is a creative act of both man and of God. and so being desirous of God and the more than infinite and eternal desire that God has to love all his children I see no reason to profess a "sola or solo"-anything besides God alone. then in my walking and reasoning with God and in my own souls growth and development for both Gods and my own joy I see that we play a love game and a loving personal relationship in spirit and in truth and in the fullness of life that Jesus speaks of and I thirst for it just as much as I do not anymore thirst... for all things are ours and we are Christ's and Christ's is God's.

one can simply not escape from their own freedom. God gave it to us and so when we confess a thing it is always in part out of our own authority that we confess a thing and in seeing the Trinity I see how he lives, that it is his divine love and that it is what is good and so with my own freedom I will be with God and I shall not conform to secondary things but rather whatever that I have I shall have with God.

Albion said:

That's right. I'd put it a little differently and say that Sola means the Bible is the final authority for essential doctrine. It does not rule out using reason or experience, etc. as a help in understanding Scripture, and it doesn't mean that there is not truth of some sort (but not essential to salvation) to be found elsewhere.

Solo is derived from that, and stipulates that there is nothing the church or we Christians are free to do or believe UNLESS it is found in the Bible.

Click to expand...

I wouldagree. You know, in general, our thinking has suffered from a loss of cognition of the different "senses" of available meanings of words. People seem less willing to categorize and subset meanings. Discussions lose depth and breadth. Maybe I just need another cognac and 8 hrs sleep.

BobRyan said:

That is the meaning some put into the male vs female gender of the word.

The Bible does not teach that God never gave a message to any prophet but those that wrote the Bible as we see in the case of Nathan, Agabus and all those in 1Cor 14, Philip's 4 daughters, Deborah etc None of whom wrote any part of the Bible -all of whom claimed to have direct messages from God.

So that means that "Sola Scriptura" would argue that the role of prophets is defined by the Bible - but the Bible definition of it does not limit prophets to "only those that write the Bible".

Hence my statement "Give me the Bible AND the words IN the Bible" because all "Have" Bibles - but what the Bible teaches is not - what some have supposed. So then we have "sola" and "solo" as ideas to kick around - but when you look at what the Bible says on the subject - it begins to expand a bit.

Click to expand...

That is where I would seek clarity as well.
Good point about prophetics.