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

[Rick Otto]

Well, the fact that they aren't "one" any more makes the word "denomination" entirely appropriate. That's all there is to that.

Aside from that, it's a value-neutral word and anybody that attaches an adjective to the 'nom' "Christian", is denominational.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by BlackSepulcher

*referring to EO as not being a denomination*

That really is true, it can't technically be considered a denomination because the Roman and Greek Churches were one from the very beginning up until the Great Schism.
​

Then out of that, came the Protestant Reformation.
Is that really a bad thing today?


http://www.christianforums.com/t6790703-38/#post43066817
Great Schism and effect on Christianity and Theology

GreatSchism of 1054.

Following the rule of Charlemagne, Christianity spread throughout Europe which served as a unifying force for the continent. This was in part due to the Great Schism of 1054 where two competing religious authorities, Pope Leo IX of the Roman Catholic Church, and Patriarch Michael I of the Eastern Orthodox faith, excommunicated each other in a dispute over authority..............

The major event that is often cited as the separation of the East and West is the Great Schism of 1054. Actually at the time it was seen as simply another temporary schism between the two regions. But this one never resolved as the two Churches drifted farther apart. Also, though the date seems to be an easy reference, it must be seen as wider political and theological context which lead to the division.............

The cardinal excommunicated the patriarch who, in turn, excommunicated the cardinal. The main point of contention was the use of leavened bread during the celebration of Mass, according to MacMillan Publishing's.....



.

 

[Skybringr]

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

Sure, solo is the idea that nothing can be granted outside the canon and sola makes the canon the pope.

~~Simplicity~~

 

[concretecamper]

"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!

Effectively there is no difference except for the Sola crowd feeling a bit less extreme.

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

 

[sunlover1]

Amazing how many different understandings there are about this practice.
Maybe we should stop bashing folks for it since we don't even know what it means.

 

[concretecamper]

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.

Whether it is the "rule" or "reliable caliber" you end up in the same place and have the same results. So really, what is the difference?

 

[MKJ]

Whether it is the "rule" or "reliable caliber" you end up in the same place and have the same results. So really, what is the difference?

I don't think that is evident at all.

 

[Skybringr]

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.

Which is congruent to my understanding:

Sure, solo is the idea that nothing can be granted outside the canon and sola makes the canon the pope.

~~Simplicity~~

It may sound as if I'm being a bit brash with the definitions- being Catholic does have it's own voice of criticism- but it's not like it's inaccurate either. Historically, sola scriptura was in fact put in place to undermine pope authority. And no doubt, that gambit is still used today.

 

[Rick Otto]

Whether it is the "rule" or "reliable caliber" you end up in the same place and have the same results. So really, what is the difference?

Source & calibration of information from source.

 

[Rick Otto]

Which is congruent to my understanding:





It may sound as if I'm being a bit brash with the definitions- being Catholic does have it's own voice of criticism- but it's not like it's inaccurate either. Historically, sola scriptura was in fact put in place to undermine pope authority. And no doubt, that gambit is still used today.

And a legitimate & effective gambit it is.

 

[Rick Otto]

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."

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.

 

[Skybringr]

And a legitimate & effective gambit it is.

In defying the pope, sure.
That's the underlying motive for it, after all. It's not like a notion of truth was the central propeller. That came second to justify the first.

 

[concretecamper]

Source & calibration of information from source.

But both lead to utter confusion..... if it makes you happy to distinguish, I guess it is ok.

 

[Rick Otto]

"...sola scriptura was in fact put in place to undermine pope authority."

You say that as if it is a bad thing.
As if the truth of it's necessity doesn't exist.

"That came second to justify the first."

Believing that is an easy way to confirm your loyalty bias.

"...if it makes you happy to distinguish, I guess it is ok."

I'm OK with you believing my personal happiness is my motivation, and your lack of perception is something I was raised around.
But thanks anyway for your gratuitous permission.

 

[RDKirk]

Whether it is the "rule" or "reliable caliber" you end up in the same place and have the same results. So really, what is the difference?

To say that it is a "reliable calibrator" brings us to such places as 1 Corinthians 14:23-33 and 1 Corinthians 6:1-6.

To say that it is the rule takes us to Letter of the Law. But even the Letter of the Law was never sufficient, which is why there is Talmud and Midrash.

There must always be "Talmud" and "Mishrash" if there is no concept that the Counselor is performing His role.

The first century church was committed to the idea that the Counselor was active, and all New Testament scripture about the functioning of the church--Paul, James, Peter, John--all depend on the belief that the Counselor is active, and that the witness of two or three Counselor-hearing members plus scripture resulted in a reliable direction of practice.

If the Counselor is doing his job, then scripture is a "reliable calibrator"--an additional second witness to every other witness by which to judge the valid interpretation of the Counselor's counsel.

The idea expressed of so-called "'solo' scriptura" is that there is no Counselor, but that all Christian practice is based on an individual's interpretation of scripture alone.

This is a peculiar American doctrine, but not peculiar when one recognizes that the most anti-Church and anti-Christian Americanism is the cult of the individual and the subsequent twisting of Christian living into an individual-centered practice instead of the Church-cetered practice that Jesus originally set up.

 

[Rick Otto]

The cult of the individual VS the cult of authority.
In between are real Christians with the required concept.

 

[SolomonVII]

Which is congruent to my understanding:





It may sound as if I'm being a bit brash with the definitions- being Catholic does have it's own voice of criticism- but it's not like it's inaccurate either. Historically, sola scriptura was in fact put in place to undermine pope authority. And no doubt, that gambit is still used today.

Why would you cal it a gambit?

There was never any ploy or secret from the beginning of the Reformation until now that Scripture was being called to be the alternative authority to an authoritarian church that was becoming increasingly authoritarian, as amply demonstrated by the example of Hus.

 

[heymikey80]

In defying the pope, sure.
That's the underlying motive for it, after all. It's not like a notion of truth was the central propeller. That came second to justify the first.

I believe the growth of Roman papal power preceded your "first". Yet there was not corresponding growth in Scriptural power, was there?

The Reformation didnt repudiate history. The Scriptures mean what they mean in context of history and culture, and their thinking persists as the voice of God to that context wherever those contexts appear.

It takes some work to apply some Scripture, due to the time that has elapsed and context that must be understood. But much of moral and spiritual reality do not move quickly. So much of its corresponding application is clear.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by sunlover1

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...

Now ya got me in the mood again!


.