Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Aside from that, it's a value-neutral word and anybody that attaches an adjective to the 'nom' "Christian", is denominational.Well, the fact that they aren't "one" any more makes the word "denomination" entirely appropriate. That's all there is to that.
Then out of that, came the Protestant Reformation.
Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura...is there a difference?
"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!
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.
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.
Sure, solo is the idea that nothing can be granted outside the canon and sola makes the canon the pope.
~~Simplicity~~
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?
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.
Sola doesn't lead to untoward anything.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."
And a legitimate & effective gambit it is.
Source & calibration of information from source.
You say that as if it is a bad thing."...sola scriptura was in fact put in place to undermine pope authority."
Believing that is an easy way to confirm your loyalty bias."That came second to justify the first."
I'm OK with you believing my personal happiness is my motivation, and your lack of perception is something I was raised around."...if it makes you happy to distinguish, I guess it is ok."
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?
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.
I believe the growth of Roman papal power preceded your "first". Yet there was not corresponding growth in Scriptural power, was there?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.
Now ya got me in the mood again!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...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?