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

[file13]

Division over non-essentials. What a shame! Do think that divisions are okay then, as long as they over things that aren't important?

You seem to not realize brother that your church has the exact same problem here. You are also divided over non-essentials and you are also incapable of making an world-wide authoritative statement on anything. All you can do about these non-essentials is get a local decision from your priest, bishop, or perhaps even regional synod.

So you see, it's not unique to the Protestant world, it's also a problem for any Christian group except the RCC--who can make world-wide authoritative decisions. Of course, do either of us think this is a good thing?

No, it's actually the point. If there is division how could it be justified except as essential?

The division occurs today for the same reason it occurs in EO churches. Zealots or fanatics elevate an issue and deem it essential and if they can't get their way, the break off. You know how this story goes.

Of course this is just one way such things occur. Another very common problem is lack of proper catechizing. Sastitically speaking, most Christians really have never been properly catechized and are simply cultural Christians. Again, this effect evangelicals as much as it does EO or RCC (and statically, this probable seems to be worse in the "traditional" churches like EO or RCC). You know the types. The "Russian Candle Lighter Club" who pulls in five minutes before communion, lights a candle, and then leaves. They also show up during Pascha and leave after the procession. These are "Cultural Christians." Sadly this is a problem in evangelical churches as much as it is in RCC. Again, these folks are just as likely to just pick up one day and leave if they decide that the cultural social club isn't cutting it.

Then you have the scenario where an individual or group of Christians (who wouldn't qualify as fanatics per se) in any body decides that they don't like the direction of the church and decide that if they don't like it, they'll go to another church or start their own. Again, this happens in your churches just as it does ours and I've personally seen whole groups of EO Christians leave the EO church in mass exodus.

Finally, you have the problem where if any Christian in any church dosen't like something in a particular church, we'll they just go to another one within the same sect. Don't like the pastor or priest? Go to the one a few miles away. Don't like what he said to do for "penance/epistimia," go to another church.

So again, we find this problem of the church's authority in all churches. Even RCC are not immune.

So the question becomes, how is this a uniquely evangelical problem?

Some seem to be saying even that there aren't really any essential because it's all relative. It's very confusing honestly.

I can't speak for everyone in this thread, but remember that this thread was (key word) about if there was a difference between sola and solo scirputra. I asserted that there obviously is and I believe I made a valid argument for this view. If there are evangelicals here who are advocating that there is no objective truth (and I haven't seen it, but it's a big thread), than they are clearly not adhering to sola scriptura (and possibly not even solo scriptura, but their own post-modern world view). In other words, if there are evangelical folks who are in disagreement, it's because they do not adhere to sola scriptura, but solo scriptura.

Why would people divide over non-essentials? Even more perplexing is why they would think that it is okay to divide over non-essentials. How is this normative? It seems more like the essentials are being stripped away little by little to allow greater division... Isn't that the opposite of norming?

I don't have time to finish responding to this, but I've already answered this and I'd like to point out a historical assumption you're making here that historical and even contemporary evangelicals decided to arbitrarily leave the One True Church. Yet the vast majority didn't decide this. We we born into it just as you were. It also ignores the fact that during the reformation, you had isolated regions that had to setup their own churches due to the politics of the time. Many "different churches" are simply reformation churches who had no ability to join, let's say, one of the Lutheran Communions.

In the end, the norming of Scripture does occur on the essentials. What's essential? "What must I do to be saved?" What else? Anything that is clearly stated in Scripture. For example, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't kill, etc.

 

[Dorothea]

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

So, you believe all the Churches established by the Apostles were teaching different doctrines from each other?

Do you believe the Apostles were teaching differently from each other?

 

[Dorothea]

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.

I do think that God revealed the truth to His Church at that time. You are saying there is an absolute truth. Which interpretation is the truth revealed to is by God Hinself?

 

[Hairy Tic]

"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!

## One is good grammar, and means something - the other is ungrammatical, slovenly, ignorant, and meaningless. If people want to be understood, they should not butcher the words they use. Such barbarisms are inexcusable in a supposedly educated person. If people can't write good Latin, they should not presume to use it.

"[A] return to apostolic succession" won't happen. Some people find it attractive - but how many Fundamentalists are likely to "return" to it ? Not very many. Besides, the tradition of opposing it will probably be too strong - centuries of attacking it leaves people with a lot to swallow & "un-say".

 

[Dorothea]

I'm trying to start dinner and squeeze it in before Church and am writing this on my ph. I just wanted to say, file, that's not exactly true what you posted about the EOC. All churches that make up the EOC share the same dogma, doctrine, faith.

It is not the same for the churches that attest to SS. Baptism and eschatology would be two examples of doctrines that are conflicting in said churches.

 

[sunlover1]

So you don't think that division is a sin?

Hi Kristos. Do you believe that division is sin?

 

[Hentenza]

So, you believe all the Churches established by the Apostles were teaching different doctrines from each other?

Some of them certainly were. Think about it, the church was established at Pentecost (33ad) and the "council" of Jerusalem was around 49ad. The issue with the converted Jews arguing and teaching for the necessity of becoming a Jew in order to be part of the church was an ongoing issue which probably started soon after the church's inception so here we already have close to 16 years of some churches teaching what became wrong doctrine.

Do you believe the Apostles were teaching differently from each other?

Nope.

 

[Dorothea]

Some of them certainly were. Think about it, the church was established at Pentecost (33ad) and the "council" of Jerusalem was around 49ad. The issue with the converted Jews arguing and teaching for the necessity of becoming a Jew in order to be part of the church was an ongoing issue which probably started soon after the church's inception so here we already have close to 16 years of some churches teaching what became wrong doctrine.



Nope.

There have always been disputes in the Church, but as you'll notice, the Apostles would go to said Churches to correct the dispute or problem (i.e. Paul). And the Churches did not continue with their ideas or whatever, but conformed to the teachings of the Apostles. So, I would disagree with what you said that the Churches that Paul visited and about the Council in Jerusalem means the Churches were out of communion and taught strange doctrines continually. No, history shows they were corrected and conformed to the one mind of the Church.

PS: I'm sorry if there are typos. I'm on my phone.

 

[Hentenza]

I do think that God revealed the truth to His Church at that time.

God revealed His truth fully to the apostles which in turn taught it to the church at that time. The churches in turn began to interpret those teachings sometimes outside of what the apostles taught and the epistles followed attempting to return the church to the apostolic teaching.

You are saying there is an absolute truth. Which interpretation is the truth revealed to is by God Hinself?

The word of God is the only absolute truth. The full truth rests among the different interpretations of God's word. It is there but the problem is that we progressively interpreted it as our biases crept in. It is not much different then that it is now since all local churches back then were autonomous as they are now. You can see the deviation of doctrines progress historically through the early and later councils.

 

[bbbbbbb]

## One is good grammar, and means something - the other is ungrammatical, slovenly, ignorant, and meaningless. If people want to be understood, they should not butcher the words they use. Such barbarisms are inexcusable in a supposedly educated person. If people can't write good Latin, they should not presume to use it.

This reminds me of the chap I once met who described himself as being "agnoxious".

 

[Hentenza]

There have always been disputes in the Church, but as you'll notice, the Apostles would go to said Churches to correct the dispute or problem (i.e. Paul). And the Churches did not continue with their ideas or whatever, but conformed to the teachings of the Apostles. So, I would disagree with what you said that the Churches that Paul visited and about the Council in Jerusalem means the Churches were out of communion and taught strange doctrines continually. No, history shows they were corrected and conformed to the one mind of the Church.

I don't think so. The 7 churches of revelation being a case in point.

PS: I'm sorry if there are typos. I'm on my phone.

No problem. I admire you for typing from your phone. It is hard enough for me to keep typos using my regular keyboard. lol

 

[Ortho_Cat]

"In necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom; in everything compassion". -- Rupertus Meldenius
​

Yes. The divisions amongst orthodox evangelicals are over non-essentials. This is why you have non-denominational churches and the ecumenical movement.

Heterodox groups (like SDAs for example) are heterodox because they reject (or at least did traditionally) sola gratia/sola fide. Groups that are Lutheran, Reformed, or Arminian all accept sola gratia/fide (which we would say is clear from Scripture), though they differ over the timing of the event (which only the zealots would dispute that it is clear from Scripture).

That being said, shall we make a list of EO "non-essentials" and ask the question if you are also of one mind?

So the definition of "orthodox evangelical" is that they accept sola fide/gratia? Wow, you learn something new everyday...

I find it interesting that you exclude adherence to sola scriptura as being the criteria for 'orthodox evangelicals', since this is essentially the basis for the previous doctrines you mentioned. So it seems that it is not one's adherence to scripture as the sole authority which determines heterodox from orthodox, rather it is a certain interpretation of scripture which has the "authority" to define such...interesting indeed.

 

[Dorothea]

I don't think so. The 7 churches of revelation being a case in point.

Well, that's all in the interpretation.

No problem. I admire you for typing from your phone. It is hard enough for me to keep typos using my regular keyboard. lol

Using that one index finger punching in the letters on the tiny keyboard can indeed be a mess.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

but then one could counter that the Church's that use the Rule of Scipture as the final Authority should be of one mind. But clearly by the 50,000 and growing Church Denominations, Groups, and Home Cells, that this is not true.

Who's accountably for each's interpretation? Are the Baptist's accountable to the Lutheran's for their interpretations? Are the Lutheran's Accountable to Mormons or the Pentacostals for their intrepretations?

Because let's be honest here Lutherans are a heck of alot closer to the RCC then they are to let's say the Southern Baptist Church.

So if the Lutheran's aren't accountable to the Baptist's for their intrerpretations and their doctrines then who are they accountable to? Who has to agree to them? Hmm this may seem odd but they would be accountable to themselves and have to agree with themselves?

Now why does that last part sound so familiar.

They both claim they are accountable to scripture, but ultimately what divides them is their interpretations of scripture. However, each side can justify and defend their differences from scripture. Therefore, each are accountable to their own church's interpretation of scripture.

Since an individual's conscience cannot be bound by someone else's interpretation of scripture (including a church's), where the ultimate authority lies is in an individual's interpretation, which is essentially solo/nuda scriptura.

For solo to come out of sola, it had to be buried in there somewhere. Solo is essentially sola; solo just cuts right to the chase without beating around the bush.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

I'd say there is quite a bit of difference in variety between those who profess apostolic succession and those who profess sola scriptura. Let's take a practical example.

Over the course of 2000 years, i'd say that the EO and the RC share much more in common than do the Lutherans and Jehovah's Witness over the course of less than 500 years, the latter two both professing sola scriptura. If anyone wants to argue this, i'd certainly be willing to.

Again, the proof's in the pudding. Relying on apostolic succession is more reliable in preserving correct doctrine than sola scriptura. Take all the groups who claim apostolic succession and compare their beliefs. Then take all the groups who profess SS and compare their beliefs. It will be readily apparent that the diversity caused by SS within the span of 500 years is orders of magnitude greater than the diversity between the groups who claim AS over a period 2000 years.

AS: less diversity in beliefs over a longer timespan
SS: more diversity in beliefs over a lesser timespan

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Yes, as it should be, and historically was in the early church. If the church is indeed built upon the apostles and the prophets, than it must also be subservient to the teachings of the apostles and prophets that are recorded in Scripture.

The ultimate authority was originally in Christ and still is in Christ. After Pentecost, Christ exercised his authority primarily through his body, the church, which was led and guided by his appointed apostles, who passed their authority to their appointed successors (who are still appointed by Christ).

Huh? (typo in bolded part?)

Yes. It should read:

"The types of church governments you mentioned do assert church authority to some extent, but that is not because they adhere to SS, as I can show you plenty of churches who hold to SS, which do not assert the type of ecclesial authority that you mention."

"My definition" for SS is basically the same as all educated evangelicals. As for the church's authority, again, you'll find more or less the same definition. All you have to do is look at the confessions or "statements of faith" and I think you'll find suprising uniformity with churches adhering to sola scriptura as opposed to solo scriptura.

If i'm willing to grant that the definition of SS is uniform (which I don't believe, but am too lazy to spell out the differences now) then why so many different expressions/understandings of it?

Ok. If this is true (and sorry, because I know you don't like us bringing up tradition), which Father's commentaries are authoritative? Which saints? What happens when they disagree (which they do...constantly!). Which life of the church? East? West? North? How can we verify which interpretation is the proper one when we find that the Fathers sound like a bunch of evangelicals when they through Scripture at each other?

Doctrine is expressed through the concensus teaching of the fathers and supported by scripture, as witnessed through the ecumenial councils. (or even the council of jerusalem in Acts). I believe you highly exaggerate the disharmony found in the church father's commentaries. The writings of the church fathers are available for anyone to see and make up their mind as to which church most faithfully and accurately represents the concensus teachings of the fathers. I think the more one reads their writings, they will realize how much they harmonize with each other.

This is historically incorrect. the reformers breathed from the Fathers. Calvin (for example) quotes from numerous church father constantly in his work of systematic theology (which was not written for polemics, but as a catheceses guide). So it's not just a reaction and your claim that they only rely on Augustine (which they do quote from immensely...as do RCC and every other Western Christian).

Like I said, mainly Augustine. Much of Protestant theology sprang from Catholic theology, which was heavily influenced by Augustine, so this is no surprise. One church father does not good theology make.

An innovation like treating tradition as an infallible source of knowing?

I would say that using Tradition (which includes scripture) is at least the most reliable source of knowing.

As for apostolic succession, what happens if we find that our succession supports monergism? After all Augustine believed it and taught it. So did Aquinas, so did Luther, so did Calvin (who strangely gets the credit for it), and of course, all would argue that Augustine is simply exegeting what's in Scripture. So again, what do we do? How do we verfy which line is correct? Again, we find that tradition is useless (as is apostolic succession) in resolving the question because you can't verify oral tradition and the written tradition is not uniform. Thus, the only place we can appeal to is directly to the one infallible source that contains the apostolic teaching, Scripture.

So we can support either view from scripture, what's your point? How does that help us resolve anything? We should use scripture + tradition to solve such problems. Hmm so you say that Augustine and Aquinas teach monergism, yet the RCC doesn't adhere to monergism. What does that tell you? Either those fathers didn't teach monergism, or the CC realized that it was a misguided/minority teaching. Only Calvinists adhere to it as we understand it. This tells me that Calvin most likely picked and choosed selected quotes from Augustine et. al to give credibility to his own theory. I'm sure a RCC can give you better input regarding this.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And this is the crux of the matter here. The question I asked before which RCC and EO didn't answer.

What happens when the church falls into radical corruption and refuses to be reformed?
​

Please read my link above for the RCC and EO response and why we think this belief that the church cannot fall is absurd and unrealistic. After all, YOUR CHURCH did exactly what Luther did because it believed that Rome had become corrupt and would not reform. But of course Luther was not alone. There were voices in the wilderness crying out long before Luther and even loyal Catholics at time agreed that the church was corrupt and did need reformation.

Eh? The East carried on with business as usual after it and Rome mutually excommunicated each other. All the original sees were still in place, apostolic succession was maintained, and there was no doctrinal reform. To compare this to what Luther tried to do is hardly a comparison at all. It was a clean break with valid orders on both sides. Don't get me wrong, i think that the catholic church may be in a better position today than it was before luther. maybe it was God's will that luther triggered the counter reformation. But a similar situation hasn't happened in the east, so i think your concern for us is unnecessary. We have had heretical teachings and corruption crop up and be dispelled just the same. Also, i think the fact that the east has an assortment of bishops which are equal in authority prevents one from rising up and changing a bunch of things, kinda like how the apostles did it, ya know?

The point is, we believe as Scripture teaches that if there is corruption in the body that cannot be healed, we must separate. But it's not something Luther set out to do (he wanted to reform indulgences) nor something taken lightly.

There sure has been alot of amputations over the last 500 years, brother

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Eh? The East carried on with business as usual after it and Rome mutually excommunicated each other. All the original sees were still in place, apostolic succession was maintained

The same is true in Lutheranism, Rome excommunicated Luther (and later several Lutheran Church Fathers). It was never mutual.... The bishops and clergy ordained in the RCC remained in place and the practice of clergy officially appointing to ministries and bishops ordaining continued without change. Does that mean Apostolic Succession continued?

Now, if we entirely change the definition of Apostolic Succession from "a chain of appointments/ordainations theoretically going back to the Apostles" to "teaches THE SAME AS the 13 Apostles taught, then IMO it might be concluded that the RCC didn't have Apostolic Succession since it cannot be documented that the 13 Apostles taught DOGMAS (matters of highest importance) that the RCC taught: the INFALLIBILITY and supremecy of the bishop in the city of Rome, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception of Mary, etc. - NOT "THE SAME AS the Apostles taught." IMO, Lutherans did - so they had/have Apostolic Succession - but (interestingly) that arbitration embraces a form of Sola Scriptura: holding up the teaching to the writings of the Apostles (all found in the NT).



Of course, the issue before us here is just this: Does truth matter? If it doesn't, then there's no need for Apostolic Succession or Apostolic Tradition or Divine Scripture or anything else. No need for any norming, no need for any rule, no need for any arbitration. Purgatory MAY be right, it MAY be wrong - who cares, who gives a rip? Certainly not God so we shouldn't care either. The LDS may be right about everything it teaches, it may be wrong about what it teaches, IT JUST DOESN"T MATTER. But IF truth matters - then we've just embraced accountability, norming, and the first order of business is to all embrace a common rule/norma normans for such - and the more reliable, the more objectively knowable, the more ecumenically and historically embraced by all parties - the better. THAT is the sole issue of Sola Scriptura.








.

 

[file13]

So the definition of "orthodox evangelical" is that they accept sola fide/gratia? Wow, you learn something new everyday...

I never said this. You and brother kristos did. I was pointing out that the differences between Protestant sotierological views all revolve around timing, and yet all still hold to sola gratia/sola fide (and the order there is important, grace precedes faith).

In other words, we're all still united in the belief that salvation is a free gift from God we receive through faith, despite our arguments about the details. In other words, our soriteological views (although certainly important and which will dramatically color our relationship with Christ), are in the end, a non-essential since we are united on the essential point that we do not save ourselves nor do our works contribute to our salvation.

I was simply using this particular issue (sometimes called the Great Debate amongst evangelicals) as an example to show that our differences revolve around those things we all agree on (essentials) while still allowing us to disagree with specifics while adhering to the key point of the doctrine.

So I find it interesting that you exclude adherence to sola scriptura as being the criteria for 'orthodox evangelicals', since this is essentially the basis for the previous doctrines you mentioned. So it seems that it is not one's adherence to scripture as the sole authority which determines heterodox from orthodox, rather it is a certain interpretation of scripture which has the "authority" to define such...interesting indeed.

My goodness, where on earth do you come to these conclusions from what I wrote? I never said any such thing. A "orthodox evangelical" who has been properly catechized (i.e. one who is educated in their faith) already accepts sola scriptura by definition.

At this point I really don't see much point in continuing to beat this dead horse. We're 26 pages into this thread and you still are misrepresenting sola scriptura (as is brother kristos). That being said, if you really are actually interested in learning about what this doctrine actually teaches I'd refer you to the resources I have mentioned numerous times. Otherwise, this is getting silly and I'm getting weary of constantly re-explaining and re-stating the same thing to find another strawman pop up. You'll have to make a paradigm shift in order to understand our POV just as we have to in order to understand yours. But I can't do that for you.

In any case, peace be with you brother!

 

[file13]

The ultimate authority was originally in Christ and still is in Christ. After Pentecost, Christ exercised his authority primarily through his body, the church, which was led and guided by his appointed apostles, who passed their authority to their appointed successors (who are still appointed by Christ).

So say you. Yup, you're back to repeating the party line so I think the dialogue is dead.

Yes. It should read:

"The types of church governments you mentioned do assert church authority to some extent, but that is not because they adhere to SS, as I can show you plenty of churches who hold to SS, which do not assert the type of ecclesial authority that you mention."

I addressed this in response to kristos above that this is a problem of people and one which exists in all churches, including EO.

If i'm willing to grant that the definition of SS is uniform (which I don't believe, but am too lazy to spell out the differences now) then why so many different expressions/understandings of it?

Again, same thing.

Doctrine is expressed through the concensus teaching of the fathers and supported by scripture, as witnessed through the ecumenial councils. (or even the council of jerusalem in Acts). I believe you highly exaggerate the disharmony found in the church father's commentaries. The writings of the church fathers are available for anyone to see and make up their mind as to which church most faithfully and accurately represents the concensus teachings of the fathers. I think the more one reads their writings, they will realize how much they harmonize with each other.

Yes, that's how the EO define it. As for your assertion that they're in accord, I urge you to read them critically and see if they resemble a bunch of evangelicals who constantly argue and speculate on non-essentials.

Like I said, mainly Augustine. Much of Protestant theology sprang from Catholic theology, which was heavily influenced by Augustine, so this is no surprise. One church father does not good theology make.

Wow, this discussion really is over.

I would say that using Tradition (which includes scripture) is at least the most reliable source of knowing.

Yes, that's what EO Christians say.

So we can support either view from scripture, what's your point? How does that help us resolve anything? We should use scripture + tradition to solve such problems. Hmm so you say that Augustine and Aquinas teach monergism, yet the RCC doesn't adhere to monergism. What does that tell you? Either those fathers didn't teach monergism, or the CC realized that it was a misguided/minority teaching. Only Calvinists adhere to it as we understand it. This tells me that Calvin most likely picked and choosed selected quotes from Augustine et. al to give credibility to his own theory. I'm sure a RCC can give you better input regarding this.

It tells me they've abandoned monergism for semi-pelagainsm (or synergism if you prefer). It also tells me that you're sadly ignorant of what Augustine taught and which the church upheld in council, only to latter follow Cassian into semi-pelagainsm.

There sure has been alot of amputations over the last 500 years, brother

Yup. Some were necessary, many were not. Again, this is a sin problem, not a doctrinal one....

Eh? The East carried on with business as usual after it and Rome mutually excommunicated each other. All the original sees were still in place, apostolic succession was maintained, and there was no doctrinal reform. To compare this to what Luther tried to do is hardly a comparison at all. It was a clean break with valid orders on both sides. Don't get me wrong, i think that the catholic church may be in a better position today than it was before luther. maybe it was God's will that luther triggered the counter reformation. But a similar situation hasn't happened in the east, so i think your concern for us is unnecessary. We have had heretical teachings and corruption crop up and be dispelled just the same. Also, i think the fact that the east has an assortment of bishops which are equal in authority prevents one from rising up and changing a bunch of things, kinda like how the apostles did it, ya know?

The point was that schism happens and that it's a necessary consequence of an adherence to objective truth when two parties cannot come to an agreement.

It seems that in the end, you don't really seem at all interested in seeing through our eyes, but simply in promoting your One True Church. With that in mind, I've spent enough time on this thread. God bless ya'll and peace be with you.