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

[ARBITER01]

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

You're correct, there would only be a higher authority, The Holy Spirit. He will place us under leaders that we can grow spiritually from, as well as move us away from those same ones who no longer provide those things spiritually that we need. We allow Him to have Lordship in our lives.

All in all though, the written word is the baseline of growth for us, no matter what we may receive from another,..

1Pe 2:1 Putting away therefore all wickedness, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
1Pe 2:2 as newborn babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation;

Heb 5:12 For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food.
Heb 5:13 For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe.
Heb 5:14 But solid food is for fullgrown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Never bring a sword to a gunfight

http://www.christianforums.com/t7517942/#post56251692
Feelings about weapons

YouTube - Indiana Jones : Sword vs. Gun

 

[tadoflamb]

Since the first fruits of sola scriptura is private judgement, solo scriptura is just it's ultimate by-product. While I believe solo scriptura is a term used originally derisively by sola scripturists, to me, it describes the modern day phenonema of the 'me and Jesus' or 'me and my bible Christian'.

In the end, there's not much difference between solo and sola scriptura. 'Solo' is just the natural extension of 'sola', and oddly enough, there's nothing 'sola' can do about it since they both the 'soloist' and the 'solaist' rely on the bible as their highest authority. If anything, it's easier to
peg the solo scripturist as holding themselves as the authentic interpretter of Sacred Scripture while the authorilty of the sola scripturist, blurred by the fog of denominationalism, remains a little more aloof.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

<snip>
If anything, it's easier to
peg the solo scripturist as holding themselves as the authentic interpretter of Sacred Scripture while the authorilty of the sola scripturist, blurred by the fog of denominationalism, remains a little more aloof.

Reminds me of this classic movie.....Beware the fog!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7230052-22/#post46816576
Apparently --Catholics are now a "Denomination"

YouTube - The Fog (1980) - Official Trailer

 

[Ortho_Cat]

In his book, Mathison makes the claim:

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone.

And the article's author's counter claim is:

But, if all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, then it follows necessarily that either someone&#8217;s interpretation of Scripture is the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice, or Scripture itself cannot be the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice. The latter option is not open to Mathison as a Protestant, because to deny that Scripture is the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice is to deny sola scriptura, the very foundation of Protestantism. But neither is the former option open to Mathison, because without apostolic succession, Protestantism has no sacramental basis for anyone&#8217;s interpretation being the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice. Mathison&#8217;s position thus creates a dilemma for himself that cannot be resolved without ceasing to be Protestant.

So is the ultimate authority in a given person's interpretation of scripture, if scripture cannot act as an authority unless someone is interpreting it? If so, how do we judge who's interpretation is correct or authoritative without any interpretation inherently carrying more weight than another? Surely we can't say that all interpretations are equally valid?

 

[ARBITER01]

So is the ultimate authority in a given person's interpretation of scripture, if scripture cannot act as an authority unless someone is interpreting it? If so, how do we judge who's interpretation is correct or authoritative without any interpretation inherently carrying more weight than another? Surely we can't say that all interpretations are equally valid?

You're creating a false argument.

Paul specifically said that divisions would be evident in the body of Christ,..

1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it.

1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

They have their purpose with GOD and His will, as well as the body of Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
So is the ultimate authority in a given person's interpretation of scripture, if scripture cannot act as an authority unless someone is interpreting it?
If so, how do we judge who's interpretation is correct or authoritative without any interpretation inherently carrying more weight than another? Surely we can't say that all interpretations are equally valid?

Good question

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G1849 matches the Greek &#7952;&#958;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#8055;&#945; (exousia), which occurs 103 times in 93 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

Young) Matthew 28:18 And having come near, Jesus spake to them saying "given to Me was all authority/exousia <1849> in heaven and on earth"

Last time used in Bible:

Young) Revelation 22:14 Happy are those doing His commands that the authority/exousia <1849> shall be theirs unto the tree/wood of the life,
and by the gates they may enter into the city

 

[Ortho_Cat]

You're creating a false argument.

Really? How so? be specific.

Paul specifically said that divisions would be evident in the body of Christ,..



They have their purpose with GOD and His will, as well as the body of Christ.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that St. Paul encouraged division, or that it was a good thing?
How are we to distinguish the true teachings from the heresies, as st. Paul mentioned, since everyone's got different interpretations of scripture and there exists no authoritative interpretation (i.e. everyone's words have the same authority as another)?

 

[ARBITER01]

Really? How so? be specific.



I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that St. Paul encouraged division, or that it was a good thing?
How are we to distinguish the true teachings from the heresies, as st. Paul mentioned, since everyone's got different interpretations of scripture and there exists no authoritative interpretation (i.e. everyone's words have the same authority as another)?

I was very specific in that.

In fact, Paul described the process as a continual growth,..

Eph 4:11 And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Eph 4:14 that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error;
Eph 4:15 but speaking truth in love, may grow up in all things into him, which is the head, even Christ;

You think that the process is wrong, when in fact it is proceeding as planned, according to scripture.

Your argument is false, and only designed to pridefully uplift one segment of Christianity above the rest somehow, when in fact, that is not the case.

 

[sunlover1]

.......... only designed to pridefully uplift one segment of Christianity above the rest somehow, when in fact, that is not the case.

And this is perhaps the impetus, subconsciously of the argument against
"self interpretation" of Scripture ..
Which has always puzzled me because if i DON"T interpret what I read
"myself".. which man should I give that honor to?
Since I will give answer for what i have chosen,
perhaps it's best if I go ahead and read His Word myself as well.
And ALWAYS remembering to get by with a little help from my friends
(BODY of Christ, where each has a gift to benefit the whole)

Hope that wasn't too vague to get my thoughts accross
too much going on right now to focus , sorry!
God bless you!

 

[ARBITER01]

And this is perhaps the impetus, subconsciously of the argument against
"self interpretation" of Scripture ..
Which has always puzzled me because if i DON"T interpret what I read
"myself".. which man should I give that honor to?
Since I will give answer for what i have chosen,
perhaps it's best if I go ahead and read His Word myself as well.
And ALWAYS remembering to get by with a little help from my friends
(BODY of Christ, where each has a gift to benefit the whole)

Hope that wasn't too vague to get my thoughts accross
too much going on right now to focus , sorry!
God bless you!

You're exactly right.

Religion and control go hand in hand, whereas true born-again, Spirit-filled Christianity is free from such restraints.

Religion does not want individuals.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I was very specific in that.

In fact, Paul described the process as a continual growth,..

You think that the process is wrong, when in fact it is proceeding as planned, according to scripture.

Still, I can't help but think that you're implying that St. Paul taught that division among believers was good or natural, when he obviously did not.

10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe&#8217;s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, &#8220;I follow Paul&#8221;; another, &#8220;I follow Apollos&#8221;; another, &#8220;I follow Cephasa&#8221;; still another, &#8220;I follow Christ.&#8221;

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized intob the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don&#8217;t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel&#8212;not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

24If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.</SPAN> 25If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.</SPAN>

Anyways, I think we can agree that Christian unity is a good thing, and should be desired and sought amonst all of us. The question is, what is the best to achieve this? By scripture alone or by some other means? (This was really a rhetorical question, as I do not want to stray off-topic anymore).

Your argument is false, and only designed to pridefully uplift one segment of Christianity above the rest somehow, when in fact, that is not the case.

Ad Hominem and irrelevant. You did not address my original argument, nor clarify your objection to it.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

You're exactly right.

Religion and control go hand in hand, whereas true born-again, Spirit-filled Christianity is free from such restraints.

Religion does not want individuals.

Irrelevant red herring.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And this is perhaps the impetus, subconsciously of the argument against
"self interpretation" of Scripture ..
Which has always puzzled me because if i DON"T interpret what I read
"myself".. which man should I give that honor to?
Since I will give answer for what i have chosen,
perhaps it's best if I go ahead and read His Word myself as well.
And ALWAYS remembering to get by with a little help from my friends
(BODY of Christ, where each has a gift to benefit the whole)

Hope that wasn't too vague to get my thoughts accross
too much going on right now to focus , sorry!
God bless you!

 

[ARBITER01]

Still, I can't help but think that you're implying that St. Paul taught that division among believers was good or natural, when he obviously did not.

I don't think Paul taught it as a good thing, just that it was inevitable, no matter what.

The process of Spiritual growth and maturity is different for each Christian, as well as the gifts and ministries are different for each.

There will always be a Luther, a Finney, a Wigglesworth, etc, etc.

 

[sunlover1]

Originally Posted by sunlover1 And this is perhaps the impetus, subconsciously of the argument against
"self interpretation" of Scripture ..

Is this your argument?
If so, why do you feel there is a problem,
with my reading Scripture myself (with God's help)?

Thanks, and cheer up. I read the ending...

The bridegroom comes on a white horse.
Let NOT your heart be troubled!
"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.
I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again,
and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Is this your argument?
If so, why do you feel there is a problem,
with my reading Scripture myself (with God's help)?

Thanks, and cheer up. I read the ending...

The bridegroom comes on a white horse.
Let NOT your heart be troubled!
"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.
I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again,
and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."

I took it personally, perhaps I shouldn't have.

 

[sunlover1]

I took it personally, perhaps I shouldn't have.

I really didn't intend it at all towards you, or anyone tbh.. which is why
it was stated as it was, directed AT the argument, which may seem
odd but I have a reason for stating it so.

I just get the idea, oddly enough lol,
that Ortho Cat isn't completely against SS.
But I can be really dense too!

 

[Thekla]

And this is perhaps the impetus, subconsciously of the argument against
"self interpretation" of Scripture ..
Which has always puzzled me because if i DON"T interpret what I read
"myself".. which man should I give that honor to?
Since I will give answer for what i have chosen,
perhaps it's best if I go ahead and read His Word myself as well.
And ALWAYS remembering to get by with a little help from my friends
(BODY of Christ, where each has a gift to benefit the whole)

Hope that wasn't too vague to get my thoughts accross
too much going on right now to focus , sorry!
God bless you!

I should be asleep

Actually, as a Christian I do not accept the existence of the "subconscious" - it's a secular invention. I don't find it anywhere but in psychological theory (and notice, the inventors of psychology didn't believe in the existence of the "psyche" as used in the Scriptures or Christian writings ).

So, to employ the example from the other thread:

Consider the elements of a drawing. One can take two curved lines, two straight lines and three colors (say brown, green, and yellow). From these seven elements, an almost infinite number of different pictures can be composed.

Or, imagine a picture of a king made of jewels. One may take the jewels and re-arrange them and describe a completely different face.

In both instances, the elements are the same and the outcomes are different.

This is why the "rule of faith" mattered in the early Church and still does. The "rule of faith", what is believed, was received from the apostles who received this from Christ. Without this rule of faith, ie the core beliefs, under the Scriptures, the Scriptures can be used to make a "different face" from the face of Christ.

This does not mean that one should not read for oneself, but one's reading (which is also synonymous with interpret) of the Scriptures should be measured against the "rule of faith".

There is also the matter of one's spiritual development: our understanding of the Scriptures, and even "how" we hear God, depends in part on our present state. (The evidence of this is in Scripture - throughout the Old and New Testaments.)

The rejection of Sola Scriptura is not a rejection of reading Scripture; it is a check against both the "rule of faith" and spiritual development.

Consider: first assume that one is indeed and earnestly relying on God in their reading - has anyone over time reading the Scriptures changed their position on the "real presence" ? First believing then not, or vice versa ?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I really didn't intend it at all towards you, or anyone tbh.. which is why
it was stated as it was, directed AT the argument, which may seem
odd but I have a reason for stating it so.

I just get the idea, oddly enough lol,
that Ortho Cat isn't completely against SS.
But I can be really dense too!

well now, i wouldn't go that far...

I have been known to concede some common ground for the sake of argument however...