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

[Ortho_Cat]

"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!

 

[sunlover1]

"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!

What did you want to discuss? Just the difference between?
A thread about definition?

And fancy YOU creating yet another SS thread

 

[hedrick]

I wouldn't call these standard terminology. But the difference certainly exists. Sola scriptura comes in a spectrum, with varying emphasis on individual interpretation and community interpretation. The magisterial Reformers were more in the direction of community interpretation, which is why the churches they are associated with developing confessional traditions.

 

[Dylan Michael]

I always though that Solo Scriptura was just bad grammar.

 

[heymikey80]

Modern movements have done a number of things, each with its own problems.

One is the thrust that Scripture is the sole authority, yes, disrupting the government of Christ's church by delegated authorities.

Another is the thrust that Scripture is the sole source of reliable information.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

What did you want to discuss? Just the difference between?
A thread about definition?

And fancy YOU creating yet another SS thread

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...

 

[sunlover1]

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...

I am going to guess that due to loose usage there's not a lot of
difference between the two anymore. Not a very scientific answer
just my 2 cents i guess.
The "right to " individual interpretation sounds interesting.
Do you think that God holds me responsible for what I believe?
Or do you think He holds "the church" responsible?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I am going to guess that due to loose usage there's not a lot of
difference between the two anymore. Not a very scientific answer
just my 2 cents i guess.
The "right to " individual interpretation sounds interesting.
Do you think that God holds me responsible for what I believe?
Or do you think He holds "the church" responsible?

Well, the logical consequence of sola/solo scriptura is that since there is no authority outside of scripture, no one else can tell you what to believe or how to interpret scripture; that is, no one can bind your conscience with regards to scripture except for yourself. As for your last question, I have no idea...sorry

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

I always though that Solo Scriptura was just bad grammar.

 

[sunlover1]

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

Oh... Well cut that out! lol.

Well, the logical consequence of sola/solo scriptura is that since there is no authority outside of scripture, no one else can tell you what to believe or how to interpret scripture; that is, no one can bind your conscience with regards to scripture except for yourself. As for your last question, I have no idea...sorry

Scripture IS God breathed therefore God's very words to us...
So we could then say that "the logical consequence of sola/solo
scriptura is that since there is no authority outside of" GOD's Words to us..
then "no one else" BUT GOD.. "can tell you what to believe or how to interpret"
GOD"S Words; that is, no one can bind your conscience with regards to God's Words to us, except for yourself..

As for the last question.
God would never ever leave my salvation in another man's hands.
Amen?
Be blessed Bro!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"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.

Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/


1. The Rule of Scripture has to do with the embraced rule in norming. READ the official, traditional definition.


2. IF you mean "authority" as the RCC does - as unmitigated, unquestionable, unaccountable, divine POWER to lord it over others - then the word doesn't apply here. No one argues that the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture as the rule is a matter of divine power to lord it over others. Sola Scriptura is built on the concept of accountability - it is not the denial of such.


3. If you read the above, you'll see that Sola Scriptura is not a principle of hermeneutics, it is a practice in norming.


4. Yes, some that embrace Scripture as the rule in norming agree with the RCC in the Doctrine of Scripture - including that Scripture is INERRANT. But embracing a rule is not the same as declaring that rule as INERRANT. In my field - science - we embrace math and laborative evidence as the rule but we don't claim either is inerrant. Sola Scriptura is a practice. If you want to talk about the doctrine of Scripture - my suggestion would be to start a thread on that.

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.

1. Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/


2. Mathison (or you or whoever wrote this that you are conveying) is mixing things. Sola Scriptura is not hermeneutics OR arbitration.


3. If you or the website or whatever you are referencing or Mathison have a "problem" with self appointing self as the sole, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture or arbiter of truth - they would take that up with the only one that so does: the RCC. Sola Scriptura practices no such thing, it is the embrace of Scripture as the rule.

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

1. Read http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/


2. Sola Scriptura does not teach that each individual is the arbiter or an arbiter - fallible or infallible. Sola Scriptura doesn't teach anything, it's a PRACTICE. It doesn't teach anything any more than my typical driving on the right hand side of the road teaches anything, it's what I DO. Yes, Sola Scriptura DOES in a sense assume accountability for teachings since obviously if there is no accountability, there is no norming and thus no norm/rule in such. But it doesn't TEACH that truth matters, it simply is a practice of those who do.

I always though that Solo Scriptura was just bad grammar.

Me, too, lol.....

I would also like to discuss the right to individual interpretation

Read http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/


IF you have a problem with self designating self as the sole, authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture, take that up with the RCC. It is the only denomination (known to me) that does that. And to discuss it here may be a rule violation (hijacking) since Sola Scriptura - the topic here - doesn't designate anything or anyone as the interpreter of anything (unaccountable or otherwise).





.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Thanks for your post, CJ, but we are beyond establishing the norm. Both Sola and Solo scriptura groups acknowledge that scripture is the rule or norm.

What we are discussing in this thread is the difference in application between Sola and Sola Scriptura, specifically with regards to interpretive authority.

Would you agree with this statement?

Whereas solo scriptura rejects the interpretive authority of the Church and the derivative authority of the creeds, sola scriptura affirms the interpretive authority of the Church and the derivative authority of the creeds, except when they teach something contrary to one’s conscience, as informed by one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

derivative authority refers here to authority that is valid, yet subject to the ultimate authority of scripture.

 

[sunlover1]

Thanks for your post, CJ, but we are beyond establishing the norm. Both Sola and Solo scriptura groups acknowledge that scripture is the rule or norm.

What we are discussing in this thread is the difference in application between Sola and Sola Scriptura, specifically with regards to interpretive authority.

Would you agree with this statement?



derivative authority refers here to authority that is valid, yet subject to the ultimate authority of scripture.

Here's my answer that you missed.
Hope it helps

Originally Posted by ortho_cat

Well, the logical consequence of sola/solo scriptura is that since there is no authority outside of scripture, no one else can tell you what to believe or how to interpret scripture; that is, no one can bind your conscience with regards to scripture except for yourself. As for your last question, I have no idea...sorry

And I said this:


Scripture IS God breathed therefore God's very words to us...
So we could then say that "the logical consequence of sola/solo
scriptura is that since there is no authority outside of" GOD's Words to us..
then "no one else" BUT GOD.. "can tell you what to believe or how to interpret"
GOD"S Words; that is, no one can bind your conscience with regards to God's Words to us, except for yourself..

As for the last question.
God would never ever leave my salvation in another man's hands.
Amen?
Be blessed Bro!

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Thanks for your input, sis.


So would everyone pretty much agree that there isn't a fundamental difference between sola and solo scriptura then?

That is, each individual is subject only to the scripture, and subjected to no other "lower" authority with regards to belief or practice?

I would still like to get CJ's opinion on the matter...

 

[MrPolo]

At least Mathison is trying to adhere to some semblance of the original Protestant view of Tradition which bears little resemblance to today's Fundamentalist position.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

 

[hedrick]

My take on this is that Tradition vs. Scripture tends to degenerate into a search for some authority that you can apply without requiring good judgement. I don't believe there's such an animal. Individuals, churches, and traditions have all made mistakes and will continue to do so.

In Protestant theory each individual has both the right and responsibility to read and understand Scripture. But in the confessional Churches that is done with an understanding that individuals need to participate in a community and check against it. In many confessional churches there's a formal commitment to be guided by the community / tradition. The community also has a responsibility to pay attention when some of its members believe the current views are wrong.

As a result there's no absolute: I can't go off and do my thing, because I'm not inerrant; tradition isn't inerrant; the current church's view isn't inerrant.

There have clearly been extremes on both sides, and they are both harmful. I'm not convince that "solo scriptura" is an agreed upon term for reading Scripture in isolation, but that type of abuse certainly occurs, and if you want to use the phrase that way, its OK with me as long as you're clear that it's not just a miss-spelling.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So would everyone pretty much agree that there isn't a fundamental difference between sola and solo scriptura then?

I've never heard of "solo scriptura." It's bad grammar, that's all I know.

That is, each individual is subject only to the scripture

Let's try this again. http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

I would still like to get CJ's opinion on the matter...

Sure. Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thanks for your post, CJ, but we are beyond establishing the norm. Both Sola and Solo scriptura groups acknowledge that scripture is the rule or norm.

What we are discussing in this thread is the difference in application between Sola and Sola Scriptura, specifically with regards to interpretive authority.

Would you agree with this statement?

No, I would not.

Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

Under "What it is NOT" is arbitration. It seems you are confusing "authoritative interpreter" (a very POWER orientation) with the issue of ARBITRATION. IF you want to discuss arbitration rather than the embraced norm, I would invite you - yet again - to start a thread on arbitration.




PS Read my signature.





.

 

[sunlover1]

Thanks for your input, sis.

Thanks for the pleasant discussion!

So would everyone pretty much agree that there isn't a fundamental difference between sola and solo scriptura then?

I really can't say. All I know is that it seems beneficial IMO anyhow,
to take it to Scripture and see what God has said about it

That is, each individual is subject only to the scripture, and subjected to no other "lower" authority with regards to belief or practice?

Right, no "lower" authority with regards to belief.. not sure what you
mean by "practice"