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

[Ortho_Cat]

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 ?

Guilty as charged; vice versa

 

[Thekla]

Guilty as charged; vice versa

(I do wonder if this particular change in belief impacts other ways of "seeing", but that's a different thread )

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Solo Scriptura is just bad grammar.

 

[sunlover1]

I should be asleep

I vaguely remember something called sleep lol.
Note to self: In my next life, small family

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:

Here I used it to be gentle and fair. I DO believe that the
"Private interpretation" argument is stupid.
(there, no worries lol) But I will, once again, explain why..

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.

If a "man of God" shows ONE drawing to 10 ppl, will those 10 ppl see it the same then? Nope. Analogy fail.
The outcomes will ALWAYS be different, we're all operating from different
pasts, different mindsets, different [insert POV].

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.

Interesting theory.. but we're not subjecting God's Words to anything.

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 ?

You're implying that IF I am indeed relying on God while reading that I
will change my position on "real presence"?
YES.. i have changed my position.
Was RCC all my life.. went to church periodically, made all of the
"sacraments" prayed on my rosary and went to CCD.
As a young adult.. I READ THE BIBLE.. Why wasn't I reading the
bible all my life in the RCC? Pfft, nother story altogether..
My eyes were opened after reading it. I saw a few things that I could
not reconcile with RCCism. Left that religion behind and began seeking
God and His Ways instead..And now here I am all growed up.

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

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

Ahhhhh. Now I understand
You're just a peacemaker!
I once read somewhere that your kind are "blessed" of God.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I should be asleep

No time for sleep

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G5258 matches the Greek ὕπνος (hypnos), which occurs 6 times in 5 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJVhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1453&t=KJV


Romans 13:11 And this being aware/knowing the time, that hour already ye out of sleep/upnou <5258> to be roused/egerqhnai <1453> (5683),
for now nearer of us the Salvation than we believe
[Reve 7:10, 12:10, 19:1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZeTlMpnfHk

 

[Thekla]

I vaguely remember something called sleep lol.
Note to self: In my next life, small family

(If I knew then what I know now ... nah; this is just fine )

Here I used it to be gentle and fair. I DO believe that the
"Private interpretation" argument is stupid.
(there, no worries lol) But I will, once again, explain why..


If a "man of God" shows ONE drawing to 10 ppl, will those 10 ppl see it the same then? Nope. Analogy fail.
The outcomes will ALWAYS be different, we're all operating from different
pasts, different mindsets, different [insert POV].

What Irenaeus is pointing out (and history attests to this, in fact) is that the Scriptures can and have been disarranged/rearranged to teach a different Christ. As we can (and do) each have a different context from which we "see", constant metanoia is needed for our ability to really "see". It is the "rule of faith" which is to govern the interpretation of the Scriptures, not our personal inherited "contexts".

Interesting theory.. but we're not subjecting God's Words to anything.

The rule of faith is the revealed truth about God; it is the cornerstone from which the foundation and building commences, which determines the "shape" that the Scriptures take in our heart as it grows toward Him. It is a wholeness from which the Scriptures were produced by the inspiration of God. It preceeds the Scriptures and 'births' them as fruit which in turn, upon this foundation give fruit.

You're implying that IF I am indeed relying on God while reading that I
will change my position on "real presence"?
YES.. i have changed my position.
Was RCC all my life.. went to church periodically, made all of the
"sacraments" prayed on my rosary and went to CCD.
As a young adult.. I READ THE BIBLE.. Why wasn't I reading the
bible all my life in the RCC? Pfft, nother story altogether..
My eyes were opened after reading it. I saw a few things that I could
not reconcile with RCCism. Left that religion behind and began seeking
God and His Ways instead..And now here I am all growed up.

I'm not all growed up - got a long way to go
May we all come to grow eternally in Him.

The question re: real presence is interesting.

Whatever the change (and I think that it is not unreasonable to think some have reached to God in prayer and trust and made the opposite change), it can be asserted that there is "truth" in one position or the other.

Whatever your earlier position, did you defend it to others ? Or was it an interior position only. Was it something you lived as a direct God-given teaching to you ?

The questions can be left unanswered, no offense if so
Kinda personal, sorry

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ahhhhh. Now I understand
You're just a peacemaker!
I once read somewhere that your kind are "blessed" of God.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=peace&t=KJV
(peace)
occurs 429 times in 400 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 16 inexact matches (Gen 15:15 - Lev 6:12)

Ezekiel 37:26 And I cut to them a Covenant of Peace, covenant of age He shall become with them.
And I give them and I increase them, and I give them sanctuary/04720 miqdash of Me in midst of them for age.

Matt 5:9 Happy the peacemakers that they, sons of God shall be being called.

 

[file13]

"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, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority | Called to Communion

Read and discuss!

Regardless of the term, what Mathison is describing is a real epistemological difference. Don't like the term, don't use it. Like any term it is simply a way to encode a concept, a point of view, into a manageable linguistic package. But the point is, yes there is a very real difference in how one approaches and uses Scripture and the term is simply one of convenience to make it clear how one likely interprets Scripture (or tries to). There is a very real difference between someone who rejects any other epistemological sources outside of ones personal interpretation of Scripture and a church who recognizes the need and usefulness of other sources, but limits their ability to bind one's conscience on essential matters.

For more information, I'd refer you to the first video in this series. It covers all these views along with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views.

As for the article, I've discussed these elsewhere somewhere here in GT and it's basically making the same silly claim that there's really no difference between the two points of view in the end, because you still need an authority. But this is absurd because there are real tangible differences that can be demonstrated. Also, what Mathison calls sola scriptura recognizes the place and authority of the church, and so the argument only succeeds in trashing up some hay and avoiding the real issue the Reformers died for. Protestants are completely aware that the real issue is one of authority, but insist that sola scriptura is the only effective method to resolve the question, what happens when the church becomes radically corrupt and refuses to reform? Of course the RCC and EO would no doubt claim such a thing is ultimately impossible and point to Matt 16:18 as proof. Other Christians look at the entire course of God's interaction with humans as recorded in Scripture and see that although God will indeed preserve His elect, He does not make any promises to any one tribe that it is or even will remain His unique source of grace as He not only constantly warns them of corruption, but repeatedly took power away from a tribe or group only to give it to another. For us folks, the idea that Christ setup a "One True Church" in the sense that only a single sect (like RCC or EO) represents this One True Church, is simply not a biblical concept and thus, since parts of the church can always fall from grace, why we must have a way to deal with corruption when it inevitably arises (which amusingly enough, both RCC and EO agree exists and which each points at the other as an example of this). We believe that only sola scriptura can effectively deal with this situation as we move farther and farther away from the sources of these unwritten traditions and as the pile of them continues to grow and grow.

But again, see links for more info since I think you're basically beating a dead horse here brother and I really don't feel the need to repeat what we've discussed over and over in other threads. Take the term or leave it, the terms express a difference as real as the differences between RCC and EO Christians. Sola scriptura, again, take it or leave it. If you do reject it, as you no doubt do, just be prepared to submit to the authority of The Church on any given belief or practice, regardless of the arguments against them. You can appeal to Scripture, reason, other tradition, quote Fathers till you're blue in the face, appeal to science and even common sense. In the end, you are basically agreeing to do and believe whatever you are told, because you believe that The Church simply can't completely fall into corruption. And we're back to the tautology we've repeated again and again:

Truth is what we say is truth because we're the One True Church because we say we're the One True Church.
​

God bless and hope this helps!

 

[sunlover1]

(If I knew then what I know now ... nah; this is just fine )

I'm hearing ya sister.
Couldn't and wouldn't want to go back and redo after knowing them lol.
But dang, what WERE we thinking?

What Irenaeus is pointing out (and history attests to this, in fact) is that the Scriptures can and have been disarranged/rearranged to teach a different Christ. As we can (and do) each have a different context from which we "see", constant metanoia is needed for our ability to really "see". It is the "rule of faith" which is to govern the interpretation of the Scriptures, not our personal inherited "contexts".

Heck, common sense tells us that we all have different points of view.
But it's not going to change whether we READ about God, HEAR from
God or even SEE God.. RE: story of the blind men and the elephant.
We will always always always understand God differently. We will
never be clones, praise God.
We will all continue to try to understand Him on a deeper level but will
never know fully, face to face, until that which is perfect is come.

The rule of faith is the revealed truth about God; it is the cornerstone from which the foundation and building commences, which determines the "shape" that the Scriptures take in our heart as it grows toward Him. It is a wholeness from which the Scriptures were produced by the inspiration of God. It preceeds the Scriptures and 'births' them as fruit which in turn, upon this foundation give fruit.

I made a new thread to discuss this

I'm not all growed up - got a long way to go
May we all come to grow eternally in Him.

At least the kids dont realize that yet.. well some of them maybe lol.

Whatever your earlier position, did you defend it to others ? Or was it an interior position only. Was it something you lived as a direct God-given teaching to you ?

The questions can be left unanswered, no offense if so
Kinda personal, sorry

[/QUOTE]
I was raised in a very conservative RCC hating area of the country.
But that didn't stop me from believing that which I had been taught
all of my life...Reading Scripture though, not a moment's hesitation
and I was done with that church. No sect will ever win my allegiance again!
Not sure if that helps.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Ahhhhh. Now I understand
You're just a peacemaker!
I once read somewhere that your kind are "blessed" of God.

What can I say, I'm flattered... I think the title of 'peacemaker' may be more aptly suited for LLOJ, however

 

[Thekla]

I'm hearing ya sister.
Couldn't and wouldn't want to go back and redo after knowing them lol.
But dang, what WERE we thinking?

Clearly, I was not thinking rationally

Heck, common sense tells us that we all have different points of view.
But it's not going to change whether we READ about God, HEAR from
God or even SEE God.. RE: story of the blind men and the elephant.
We will always always always understand God differently. We will
never be clones, praise God.
We will all continue to try to understand Him on a deeper level but will
never know fully, face to face, until that which is perfect is come.

Of course, but we do (I hope) desire to come to know God as He is.
Are false teachings re: Christ unimportant ?

I made a new thread to discuss this

:o I saw ...

At least the kids dont realize that yet.. well some of them maybe lol.

I tell them If I can't be honest about my own spiritual shortcomings, I am failing my children (and all my brothers and sisters).

I was raised in a very conservative RCC hating area of the country.
But that didn't stop me from believing that which I had been taught
all of my life...Reading Scripture though, not a moment's hesitation
and I was done with that church. No sect will ever win my allegiance again!
Not sure if that helps.

Kinda - but I was wondering more about (for all of us) if in turning to God, any understanding from the Scripture we had later (from continuing to turn to God) changed ? Real presence seems to be an understanding that persons of professed deep faith disagree on.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

(I do wonder if this particular change in belief impacts other ways of "seeing", but that's a different thread )

Other ways of seeing scripture? Yes, I think so. For me, it was a domino effect. First I realized baptism as being sacramental from scripture, and then communion. Then I when I saw the ECF's support this belief, I was really in trouble... Anyways, don't want to derail further...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Regardless of the term, what Mathison is describing is a real epistemological difference. Don't like the term, don't use it. Like any term it is simply a way to encode a concept, a point of view, into a manageable linguistic package. But the point is, yes there is a very real difference in how one approaches and uses Scripture and the term is simply one of convenience to make it clear how one likely interprets Scripture (or tries to). There is a very real difference between someone who rejects any other epistemological sources outside of ones personal interpretation of Scripture and a church who recognizes the need and usefulness of other sources, but limits their ability to bind one's conscience on essential matters.

For more information, I'd refer you to the first video in this series. It covers all these views along with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views.

As for the article, I've discussed these elsewhere somewhere here in GT and it's basically making the same silly claim that there's really no difference between the two points of view in the end, because you still need an authority. But this is absurd because there are real tangible differences that can be demonstrated. Also, what Mathison calls sola scriptura recognizes the place and authority of the church, and so the argument only succeeds in trashing up some hay and avoiding the real issue the Reformers died for. Protestants are completely aware that the real issue is one of authority, but insist that sola scriptura is the only effective method to resolve the question, what happens when the church becomes radically corrupt and refuses to reform? Of course the RCC and EO would no doubt claim such a thing is ultimately impossible and point to Matt 16:18 as proof. Other Christians look at the entire course of God's interaction with humans as recorded in Scripture and see that although God will indeed preserve His elect, He does not make any promises to any one tribe that it is or even will remain His unique source of grace as He not only constantly warns them of corruption, but repeatedly took power away from a tribe or group only to give it to another. For us folks, the idea that Christ setup a "One True Church" in the sense that only a single sect (like RCC or EO) represents this One True Church, is simply not a biblical concept and thus, since parts of the church can always fall from grace, why we must have a way to deal with corruption when it inevitably arises (which amusingly enough, both RCC and EO agree exists and which each points at the other as an example of this). We believe that only sola scriptura can effectively deal with this situation as we move farther and farther away from the sources of these unwritten traditions and as the pile of them continues to grow and grow.

But again, see links for more info since I think you're basically beating a dead horse here brother and I really don't feel the need to repeat what we've discussed over and over in other threads. Take the term or leave it, the terms express a difference as real as the differences between RCC and EO Christians. Sola scriptura, again, take it or leave it. If you do reject it, as you no doubt do, just be prepared to submit to the authority of The Church on any given belief or practice, regardless of the arguments against them. You can appeal to Scripture, reason, other tradition, quote Fathers till you're blue in the face, appeal to science and even common sense. In the end, you are basically agreeing to do and believe whatever you are told, because you believe that The Church simply can't completely fall into corruption. And we're back to the tautology we've repeated again and again:

Truth is what we say is truth because we're the One True Church because we say we're the One True Church.
​

God bless and hope this helps!

Ah, it appears I have lured the boar out of the bushes! Will post more later...

 

[sunlover1]

Clearly, I was not thinking rationally

I was thinking Roman Catholicly LOL

Of course, but we do (I hope) desire to come to know God as He is.
Are false teachings re: Christ unimportant ?

Truth is always important, and the only way to "see" truth
is to be REborn. Until rebirth, one doesnt have the ability to
even see the truth. It's a spiritual thing.

I tell them If I can't be honest about my own spiritual shortcomings, I am failing my children (and all my brothers and sisters).

I fake it!
Just kidding. We go to the Father in prayer together, as His children,
on equal footing spiritually.

Kinda - but I was wondering more about (for all of us) if in turning to God, any understanding from the Scripture we had later (from continuing to turn to God) changed ?

I think that for this question I would turn TO Scripture for the answer..

Real presence seems to be an understanding that persons of professed deep faith disagree on.

IMO they're acting as fools.
Jesus said what He said and I see no reason to go beyond that to
try to prove either way.
I say what He said and leave the details to Him...

Man trying to figure out every little thing He cant possibly understand
while defiantly standing in his sin and his refusal to become what God
created him to be and to DO What God created him to do which , by the
way, God made it quite clear!

Reminds me of camels and gnats ! kwim?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

to me, it describes the modern day phenonema of the 'me and Jesus' or 'me

IMO, it's EXACTLY the opposite....

Embracing the Rule of Scripture is a reaction to the "Jesus and ME" mentality of ME insisting that ME is the sole authority, ME is essentially God on earth, when I speak Jesus speaks, the fundamental rejection of accountability in the sole case of ME. Read the Catholic Catechism # 87 for example.... Sola Scriptura might be seen as a reaction to this insistence of self declaring self to be too special for truth, too special for accountability - above both. Why? Cuz it's "me and Jesus"

If anything, it's easier to peg the solo scripturist as holding themselves as the authentic interpretter of Sacred Scripture .

IMO, you have it exactly backwards.....

I've never heard of a denomination embracing the Rule of Scripture designating itself as the sole, authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of anything. Where this is found is in the RCC (and to a much less degree, in the early LDS but not so much today - and of course, generally in the cults; all REJECTING the Rule of Scripture (and any other) becuase self alone declares that self alone is "With Jesus" in such a special way as to be exempt from truth, accountability and norming. It may go so far as to insist that this "bond" of "JESUS AND ME" is so powerful, so unique that to listen to self IS to listen to Jesus - they are almost the same. Read the Catholic Catechism # 87 and "On the Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie for example - both from denominations that are the most passionate objectors to the Rule of Scripture.







.

 

[brinny]

Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for KJV
(peace)
occurs 429 times in 400 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 16 inexact matches (Gen 15:15 - Lev 6:12)

Ezekiel 37:26 And I cut to them a Covenant of Peace, covenant of age He shall become with them.
And I give them and I increase them, and I give them sanctuary/04720 miqdash of Me in midst of them for age.

Matt 5:9 Happy the peacemakers that they, sons of God shall be being called.

LOL tooooo funnnnn-ny

good verses about peace, too....and that's deep, the meaning behind the words "covenant"

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I'd just like to say a few words in hope of re-focusing this thread, as I do not want it to turn into another Tradition vs. SS debate.

Let me return to the original statement in the OP:

"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."


Notice that a defense has not been made for tradition here. It is merely presented as the only recourse to the dilemma presented by both sola/solo, and says nothing about the validity or veracity of the former. Therefore, I will not present a defense of tradition or apostolic succession in this thread, but merely point to it as the only logical alternative to resolving this dilemma between sola/solo scriptura.

My first goal in this thread was to determine whether or not other forumers agreed with Mathison's assessment, which concluded that solo scriptura is indeed an 'unbiblical position.' I do not seem to notice any concensus, nor have I seen anyone outright condemn solo as being unbiblical. If anyone wants to discuss the differences between sola/solo, and your views regarding both, please feel free to do so.

However, I would also like to discuss in more detail the idea of interpretative authority with regards to both varieties of SS. I guess I could start by returning to this:

"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."

Does everyone agree with this bolded statement? Why or why not?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone." Does everyone agree with this bolded statement? Why or why not?

1. I know nothing of "Solo Scriptura." It seems to be bad grammar that some unknown person you note made up. I can't address it since it hasn't been shown it exists - beyond some theorization of some unknown person.


2. I don't know how you mean "authority" here. Catholic and Mormons use it in the sense of POWER - the unmitigated power to lord it over others without any accountability. IF you rather herein mean that Scripture is the rule in norming - then you are discussing Sola Scriptura. If you want to discuss Sola Scriptura, there is a thread on that (read the opening post here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ ). If you want to discuss arbitration, start a thread on that. If you want to discuss principles of hermeneutics, start a thread on that.


3. You seem to simply not comprehend the difference between norming and arbitration. It has been explained to you over and over, in several threads - doing so again I fear will be seen as spamming even though it is ABSOLUTELY essential to responding to your question. I don't know why this is a point you don't understand, but I'll take responsibility for that. Sorry. Without that, your question (however off topic) cannot be addressed.







.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Regardless of the term, what Mathison is describing is a real epistemological difference. Don't like the term, don't use it. Like any term it is simply a way to encode a concept, a point of view, into a manageable linguistic package. But the point is, yes there is a very real difference in how one approaches and uses Scripture and the term is simply one of convenience to make it clear how one likely interprets Scripture (or tries to). There is a very real difference between someone who rejects any other epistemological sources outside of ones personal interpretation of Scripture and a church who recognizes the need and usefulness of other sources, but limits their ability to bind one's conscience on essential matters.

Yes, there is a difference between the two, but is there a fundamental difference with respect to the "ultimate interpretative authority"? If not, why do these other differences matter, if Solo is essentially Sola "boiled down" without the "middle men", so to speak?

For more information, I'd refer you to the first video in this series. It covers all these views along with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views.

I'll watch it and if there is relevance to the thread I will address it later.

As for the article, I've discussed these elsewhere somewhere here in GT and it's basically making the same silly claim that there's really no difference between the two points of view in the end, because you still need an authority. But this is absurd because there are real tangible differences that can be demonstrated. Also, what Mathison calls sola scriptura recognizes the place and authority of the church, and so the argument only succeeds in trashing up some hay and avoiding the real issue the Reformers died for. Protestants are completely aware that the real issue is one of authority, but insist that sola scriptura is the only effective method to resolve the question, what happens when the church becomes radically corrupt and refuses to reform? Of course the RCC and EO would no doubt claim such a thing is ultimately impossible and point to Matt 16:18 as proof. Other Christians look at the entire course of God's interaction with humans as recorded in Scripture and see that although God will indeed preserve His elect, He does not make any promises to any one tribe that it is or even will remain His unique source of grace as He not only constantly warns them of corruption, but repeatedly took power away from a tribe or group only to give it to another. For us folks, the idea that Christ setup a "One True Church" in the sense that only a single sect (like RCC or EO) represents this One True Church, is simply not a biblical concept and thus, since parts of the church can always fall from grace, why we must have a way to deal with corruption when it inevitably arises (which amusingly enough, both RCC and EO agree exists and which each points at the other as an example of this). We believe that only sola scriptura can effectively deal with this situation as we move farther and farther away from the sources of these unwritten traditions and as the pile of them continues to grow and grow.

I am aware of the differences that Mathison claims between the two. However, I leave you with the same response as I posted above in the first quote. I will not address the issue of EO or RC authority, nor defend tradition (or anything that entails) here, as it is outside the scope of the thread.

But again, see links for more info since I think you're basically beating a dead horse here brother and I really don't feel the need to repeat what we've discussed over and over in other threads. Take the term or leave it, the terms express a difference as real as the differences between RCC and EO Christians. Sola scriptura, again, take it or leave it. If you do reject it, as you no doubt do, just be prepared to submit to the authority of The Church on any given belief or practice, regardless of the arguments against them. You can appeal to Scripture, reason, other tradition, quote Fathers till you're blue in the face, appeal to science and even common sense. In the end, you are basically agreeing to do and believe whatever you are told, because you believe that The Church simply can't completely fall into corruption. And we're back to the tautology we've repeated again and again:

Truth is what we say is truth because we're the One True Church because we say we're the One True Church.
​

God bless and hope this helps!

Sorry you've addressed this before, and if you don't want to discuss it anymore I certainly don't blame you. I don't see much else of relevance to discuss in this passage.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

1. You seem INTENT on discussing issues other than the one of the thread. I'm not sure why, especially since it's your thread!


2. I know nothing of "Solo Scriptura." It seems to be bad grammar that some unknown person you note made up. I can't address it since it hasn't been shown it exists - beyond some theorization of some unknown person.


3. I don't know how you mean "authority" here. Catholic and Mormons use it in the sense of POWER - the unmitigated power to lord it over others without any accountability. IF you rather herein mean that Scripture is the rule in norming - then you are discussing Sola Scriptura. If you want to discuss Sola Scriptura, there is a thread on that (read the opening post here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ ). If you want to discuss arbitration, start a thread on that. If you want to discuss principles of hermeneutics, start a thread on that.


4. You seem to simply not comprehend the difference between norming and arbitration. It has been explained to you over and over, in several threads - doing so again I fear will be seen as spamming even though it is ABSOLUTELY essential to responding to your question. I don't know why this is a point you don't understand, but I'll take responsibility for that. Sorry. Without that, your question (however off topic) cannot be addressed.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, you seem intent on derailing this thread from the matter of hand, and keep switching the emphasis to Catholics and Mormons! I have stated very clearly what I wish to discuss in this thread. I do not care about norming, both varieties of SS agree that scripture is the norm here. I'm talking about the application and direct consequences of using SS, specifically with regards to interpretative authority.

You seem to want to keep showing me the ruler, describing it to me, defining it, etc. Now I want to know how to use the thing! There are plenty of articles online which talk about "solo scriptura", and it is certainly more than just bad grammar. It is a real phenomena. You can call it whatever you want, but I have provided a definition of it in the OP if you care to read it and address it.