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

[Kristos]

Huh? Division from what? I listed two kinds of divisions in the post that you replied to. One would be a sin the other is merely diversity.

so the fruit of SS is diversity?

how can I tell if it's diversity or division?

 

[Hentenza]

so the fruit of SS is diversity?

Is the fruit of "T'radition plus scripture diversity? Diversity is not a fruit of SS but a fruit of interpretations which is no different than the diversity of interpretation among the "T"radition plus scripture denominations.

 

[Hentenza]

how can I tell if it's diversity or division?

If one is in schism with the universal church then that is division.

 

[Kristos]

Is the fruit of "T'radition plus scripture diversity? Diversity is not a fruit of SS but a fruit of interpretations which is no different than the diversity of interpretation among the "T"radition plus scripture denominations.

No, it is unity.

You seem to be comparing things that are different. Or are you saying the there are real division between SS groups?

 

[Kristos]

If one is in schism with the universal church then that is division.

when and where does this universal church meet and discuss their difference?

 

[Dorothea]

Is there one teaching that is absolute truth? Or are all teachings acceptable, which, imo, would be relativism. I believe there is one truth in the Scriptures - the teachings. I do not believe in many different teachings on particular doctrines as all being true. There is absolute truth.

 

[Hentenza]

No, it is unity.

Unity? How can it be unity if all are not in agreement? Full unity among the local churches is a pipe dream here on earth.

You seem to be comparing things that are different. Or are you saying the there are real division between SS groups?

No there is no "division" between SS nor is there "division" between the mainstream churches whether self claimed one true churches or not. The accusation of division comes from those that believe that their church is the one and only church and that claim that others don't have the "fullness of truth". It is simply prideful and unsustainable since it is clear that God uses all denominations for His purpose. It is nothing but a power trip. God is in control. He is fully aware of everything that is happening here on earth.

 

[Hentenza]

when and where does this universal church meet and discuss their difference?

The universal church is the invisible church. They meet in heaven.

 

[Dorothea]

Unity? How can it be unity if all are not in agreement? Full unity among the local churches is a pipe dream here on earth.

Do you not believe the early Church in Acts and so forth were in full unity?

 

[Hentenza]

Is there one teaching that is absolute truth? Or are all teachings acceptable, which, imo, would be relativism. I believe there is one truth in the Scriptures - the teachings. I do not believe in many different teachings on particular doctrines as all being true. There is absolute truth.

Sure there is absolute truth and that is God's word. The rest are interpretations which does not in any way invalidate God's absolute truth but speaks loudly of man's fallibility.

 

[Hentenza]

Do you not believe the early Church in Acts and so forth were in full unity?

No, if they would have been there would not have been a need for epistles.

 

[Kristos]

The universal church is the invisible church. They meet in heaven.

So, your version of SS is that everyone can basically believe as they see fit based on scripture and we will find out who is right and who is wrong in heaven? What if one is wrong, will they still have a chance to change?

Would you include groups that were excluded by file, like SDA?

 

[Hentenza]

So, your version of SS is that everyone can basically believe as they see fit based on scripture and we will find out who is right and who is wrong in heaven? What if one is wrong, will they still have a chance to change?

There is only one version of Sola Scriptura and that is that the scriptures alone have authority over all matters of faith.

Would you include groups that were excluded by file, like SDA?

Excluded by file? Please explain.

 

[Kristos]

There is only one version of Sola Scriptura and that is that the scriptures alone have authority over all matters of faith.



Excluded by file? Please explain.

File stated that protestant groups that did not adhere to "essentials" like sola fida/sola gratis are heterodox.

Your version of SS seems a little different, because it was stated earlier that SS really only applies to the essentials, and other things can be left open to "diversity" and freedom. But you now say that it applies to ALL matters of faith. So, there seems to be multiple versions of SS.

 

[Hentenza]

File stated that protestant groups that did not adhere to "essentials" like sola fida/sola gratis are heterodox.

Who or what is file? Sorry for being a bit dense but I am not familiar with your terminology.

Your version of SS seems a little different, because it was stated earlier that SS really only applies to the essentials, and other things can be left open to "diversity" and freedom. But you now say that it applies to ALL matters of faith. So, there seems to be multiple versions of SS.

The scriptures apply to all matters of faith not just the "essentials". Heck, none can even agree on what the essentials are.

 

[Kristos]

Who or what is file? Sorry for being a bit dense but I am not familiar with your terminology.



The scriptures apply to all matters of faith not just the "essentials". Heck, none can even agree on what the essentials are.

file13 is his user name - he has been posting in this topic along with you.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7547378-17/#post57166663

 

[Hentenza]

file13 is his user name - he has been posting in this topic along with you.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7547378-17/#post57166663

Oh, thanks. I can't comment on his posts since I have not read them.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

File stated that protestant groups that did not adhere to "essentials" like sola fida/sola gratis are heterodox.

MY thoughts....


Sola Scriptura is the practice of using Scripture as the rule, the canon, the "norma normans" as doctrines (especially disputed ones) are evaluated.... That's it, that's all.


Now, IN ARBITRATION (an issue for another day and thread, we can't get too much into that here as per the rules), yes - it COULD be that some issues would be arbitrated as "essential" and some not (God exists might be essential, Mary was officially married to Joseph might not), and yes - some issues might be arbitrated as correct, some as incorrect, and some as unable to adequately determine. There is, in Protestant heritage, what Lutherans call "pious opinion" - a permitted view but not a required or essential view - not dogma. But we are WAY off topic, and of course, the same is true if we use our own individual denomination's traditions: views MIGHT be arbitrated as true or false or unable to definitively determine, essential or unessential. The RCC has a long, long history of views being embraced variously and then, slowly, becoming dogma - essential. But again, we are WAY off topic; this thread is about the rule, not any arbitration according to such.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Unity? How can it be unity if all are not in agreement? Full unity among the local churches is a pipe dream here on earth.

Has there ever been a time when ALL Christians were in FULL/COMPLETE/ABSOLUTE agreement on ALL issues? Not that I'm aware of....


IMO, agreement in our articulations of dogmas is just ONE kind of unity (and probably not the most important). IMO, the church IS one, holy, catholic communion of saints and there IS one Lord, one faith in that Lord, on baptism in that faith. Does that mean that ALL Christians (past and present) absolutely, totally, completely in every detail agree with ALL others in every single Christian issue, thought, belief, custom and practice? No. Apples and oranges....


Yes, the RCC is in agreement with ITSELF and no other. And yes, that "agreement" of self alone with self alone is severely limited - it's only "agreement" that is official, formal, institutional and in those issues where self alone currently regards as appropriate for self to agree with self concerning. IMO, that's not the typical thought as we discuss "unity" or "agreement."

No there is no "division" between SS nor is there "division" between the mainstream churches whether self claimed one true churches or not. The accusation of division comes from those that believe that their church is the one and only church and that claim that others don't have the "fullness of truth". It is simply prideful and unsustainable since it is clear that God uses all denominations for His purpose. It is nothing but a power trip. God is in control. He is fully aware of everything that is happening here on earth.

Agree.... And it's a phantom at that. And moot at that. OF COURSE self agrees with self, so what? The RCC is not better in that regard than the LDS is; self usually agrees with self - I just don't agree with the conclusion and application that ERGO self is correct.


Obviously, ARBITRATION isn't always identical - even if the embraced rule is. But, IMO, it is STILL better than not having any rule at all or in simply embracing the "tradition" of self as the rule for the correctness of the tradition of self - again, self typically agrees with self, self usually looks like the one self sees in the mirror: I don't deny that, I just find that moot to the issue of whether that self is correct.






.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Oh, thanks. I can't comment on his posts since I have not read them.

take your time...