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

[GandolftheWhite]

to California Joshia


Ok I'm not understanding why you are dodging the question.

I mean the question is quite simple and it's not from a lack of understanding Scripture as a rule of authority.

The question comes in to play is when interpretations don't line up with each other. Since every has turned to Scripture where does that leave us? It leaves to splits.

Do you think the Southern Baptists will ever adopt the Lutheran's belief structure and vice versa? And this is coming from two Sola Scriptura camps.

The point I'm trying to make is many things in Scripture aren't Black and White and this is where Sola Scriptura Fails. It succeeds on Black and white issues, yes but it falls flat on it's face on such basic Christians beliefs such as Baptism, the Eucharist, Spiritual Gifts, Free will etc.


but I can see you either don't have any answer or have an agenda so I will consider or convesation on this topic complete I guess which is sad.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I said that there was some confusion...
(Is that the citation i suggested in my rep note?
if so yeah. color me lazy .. spring break has begun!)

naw, u didn't really cite it, u left me guessing, and that was my guess Happy spring break sis!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ok I'm not understanding why you are dodging the question.

I answered it. VERY completely and simply. Several times now.

Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

Read my posts to you in this thread. It could not be more clear. Or at least I don't know how possibly to make it more clear.

The question comes in to play is when interpretations don't line up with each other.

1. Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ Sola Scriptura has to do with norming, not hermeneutics or arbitration - as is very, very, very clearly stated there - and as I repeated and explained to you earlier.

2. As has been explained, IF there is a dispute over WHICH legitimate MEANING of the WORD or WORDS in the text is meant by the text, then it goes to arbitration.

The point I'm trying to make is many things in Scripture aren't Black and White

Um, where did you ever get the idea that Sola Scripture teaches that it is? As has been noted many times, Sola Scriptura doesn't TEACH anything. It's not a teaching.

IF we're ONLY talking about THAT issue - what specifically is the correct meaning among several potential legitimate meanings of the day for the WORD or WORDS in the text (the way you keep framing this), then - yes, pointing to the WORD isn't going to resolve the issue - and it goes to arbitration. This has been explained to you many times now. That CAN be an issue (for example, the correct meaning of the word "is" in the Eucharistic texts - the texts say "is" and there are more than one FIRST CENTURY, legitimate MEANINGS of the word (as we even can see in the NT itself). But, yes - we'll need to arbitrate WHICH of the potential meanings is the one here. The issue will be "resolved" (the purpose of arbitration) to the extent that the arbitration is successful (which is largely a function of how clear that arbitration is). Sola Scriptura does not teach that arbitration is disallowed, Sola Scriptura doesn't teach anything. It would help - a lot - if you would read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

But - I'll remind you yet again - RARELY is that the case (I brought up one of the few major issues where it is). For example, every one of the distinctive RCC DOGMAS (issues of highest importance) - the things that make the RCC the RCC - every single one of the disputed distincitive RCC dogmas is NOT a case of what you seem concerned about. None of them are disputes over the legit first century meaning of a specific WORD (or WORDS) is intended. There is nothing about Mary's conception, there is nothing about Mary's body at Her death (or was that undeath?), there is no mention of the Bishop in Rome or the RC denomination. NO ONE is debating which meaning of a WORD is meant in that debate, rather the views of one denomination (the RCC) are simply declared to be true by one denomination (the RCC) and regarded as unaccountable since the RCC itself rejects accountability for the RCC itself (exclusively) - accountability is rejected, norming is rejected, any and all rules are rejected, arbitration is rejected: self demands that self just be embraced with "quiet, docilic submission" to self - insists itself alone, for itself alone. IF the DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary hinged on the disputed meaning (actual, used, First Century meaning) of a specific word in a text about Mary's body at Her death - your point would have relevance (as it does for Real Presence vs. Symbolic Presence) - and yes, as you have been told several times now, it would go to arbitration. But, that's not the case, is it? We have discussed arbitration here at CF several times. But typically, what divides us is not such an issue. Take for example the new, unique RCC Eucharistic DOGMA of Transubstantiation - an amazing, absolutely incredible amount of philosophical speculation in western Catholic Scholasticism over the meaning of the word "change" in the Eucharistic texts - while no one ever seems to notice the word doesn't exist in any Eucharistic texts - it doesn't even EXIST. The word is IMPUTED INTO the text - then "interpreted" and "explained" with some of the wildest, pagan philosphies imaginable to come up with a theory that now divides the RCC from every other denomination - Transubstantiation. Okay. Add the INFALLIBLE pope, IMMACULATE conception of Mary, ASSUMPTION of Mary - and you might begin to see the point. The issue you raise IS a legit one - albeit, rarely the issue at hand. It's typically NOT exegesis we disagree on, it's EISEGESIS. And it's all moot for your denomination anyway since it refuses to be held accountable for what it teaches anyway. It demands docilic submission to itself, POWER is the issue - not Truth from the RCC perspective.

But AGAIN, as I explained earlier, while arbitration is a HUMAN activity and thus not perfect every time (and will not perfectly resolve things every time) - even if we have a perfect Rule/norma normans, it sure beats the alternative of having no rule, no accountability, no arbitration: of self simply designating self as exempt from the whole issue of truth and instead demanding quiet docilic submission to self alone as unto God: "I'm right cuz I'm right so I'm right - so there!" While the Rule of Scripture (and yeah - perhaps arbitration) isn't perfect, just throwing our hands up in the air and insisting; "If you say you're right - or exempt from the issue of whether you are right - then you are!" seems, IMO, to be of lesser worth - both philosophically and practically. As I noted, I think I get further with my ubercalvinist friend - both embracing accountability and the Rule of Scripture - than the RCC and LDS do - both rejecting accountability, any Rule, any arbitration and instead insisting: "I'M so special that I'm exempt from the issue of whether what I teach is correct or not, I'M so special that I can't be wrong! I'M so special that when I speak, GOD is speaking!" Just my experience....

All this has been posted to you before.....






.

 

[GandolftheWhite]

I answered it. VERY completely and simply. Several times now.

Read my posts to you in this thread. It could not be more clear. Or at least I don't know how possibly to make it more clear.




Sola Scriptura has to do with norming, not hermeneutics or arbitration - as is very, very, very clearly stated there - and as I repeated and explained to you earlier.

2. As has been explained, IF there is a dispute over WHICH legitimate MEANING of the WORD or WORDS in the text is meant by the text, then it goes to arbitration.




Um, where did you ever get the idea that Sola Scripture teaches that it is? As has been noted many times, Sola Scriptura doesn't TEACH anything. It's not a teaching.

IF we're ONLY talking about THAT issue - what specifically is the correct meaning among several potential legitimate meanings of the day for the WORD or WORDS in the text (the way you keep framing this), then - yes, pointing to the WORD isn't going to resolve the issue - and it goes to arbitration. This has been explained to you many times now. That CAN be an issue (for example, the correct meaning of the word "is" in the Eucharistic texts - the texts say "is" and there are more than one FIRST CENTURY, legitimate MEANINGS of the word (as we even can see in the NT itself). But, yes - we'll need to arbitrate WHICH of the potential meanings is the one here. The issue will be "resolved" (the purpose of arbitration) to the extent that the arbitration is successful (which is largely a function of how clear that arbitration is). Sola Scriptura does not teach that arbitration is disallowed, Sola Scriptura doesn't teach anything. It would help - a lot - if you would read this:

But - I'll remind you yet again - RARELY is that the case (I brought up one of the few major issues where it is). For example, every one of the distinctive RCC DOGMAS (issues of highest importance) - the things that make the RCC the RCC - every single one of the disputed distincitive RCC dogmas is NOT a case of what you seem concerned about. None of them are disputes over the legit first century meaning of a specific WORD (or WORDS) is intended. There is nothing about Mary's conception, there is nothing about Mary's body at Her death (or was that undeath?), there is no mention of the Bishop in Rome or the RC denomination. NO ONE is debating which meaning of a WORD is meant in that debate, rather the views of one denomination (the RCC) are simply declared to be true by one denomination (the RCC) and regarded as unaccountable since the RCC itself rejects accountability for the RCC itself (exclusively) - accountability is rejected, norming is rejected, any and all rules are rejected, arbitration is rejected: self demands that self just be embraced with "quiet, docilic submission" to self - insists itself alone, for itself alone. IF the DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary hinged on the disputed meaning (actual, used, First Century meaning) of a specific word in a text about Mary's body at Her death - your point would have relevance (as it does for Real Presence vs. Symbolic Presence) - and yes, as you have been told several times now, it would go to arbitration. But, that's not the case, is it? We have discussed arbitration here at CF several times. But typically, what divides us is not such an issue. Take for example the new, unique RCC Eucharistic DOGMA of Transubstantiation - an amazing, absolutely incredible amount of philosophical speculation in western Catholic Scholasticism over the meaning of the word "change" in the Eucharistic texts - while no one ever seems to notice the word doesn't exist in any Eucharistic texts - it doesn't even EXIST. The word is IMPUTED INTO the text - then "interpreted" and "explained" with some of the wildest, pagan philosphies imaginable to come up with a theory that now divides the RCC from every other denomination - Transubstantiation. Okay. Add the INFALLIBLE pope, IMMACULATE conception of Mary, ASSUMPTION of Mary - and you might begin to see the point. The issue you raise IS a legit one - albeit, rarely the issue at hand. It's typically NOT exegesis we disagree on, it's EISEGESIS. And it's all moot for your denomination anyway since it refuses to be held accountable for what it teaches anyway. It demands docilic submission to itself, POWER is the issue - not Truth from the RCC perspective.

But AGAIN, as I explained earlier, while arbitration is a HUMAN activity and thus not perfect every time (and will not perfectly resolve things every time) - even if we have a perfect Rule/norma normans, it sure beats the alternative of having no rule, no accountability, no arbitration: of self simply designating self as exempt from the whole issue of truth and instead demanding quiet docilic submission to self alone as unto God: "I'm right cuz I'm right so I'm right - so there!" While the Rule of Scripture (and yeah - perhaps arbitration) isn't perfect, just throwing our hands up in the air and insisting; "If you say you're right - or exempt from the issue of whether you are right - then you are!" seems, IMO, to be of lesser worth - both philosophically and practically. As I noted, I think I get further with my ubercalvinist friend - both embracing accountability and the Rule of Scripture - than the RCC and LDS do - both rejecting accountability, any Rule, any arbitration and instead insisting: "I'M so special that I'm exempt from the issue of whether what I teach is correct or not, I'M so special that I can't be wrong! I'M so special that when I speak, GOD is speaking!" Just my experience....

All this has been posted to you before.....






.

First off no you did not explain yourself and please whatevery obsession you have with the RCC can you have a discussion without bringing them into everyone of your points.

and yes I've read your post, I don't seem to be alone when you seem to dodge questions.

If you have an unhealthy obsession with them then maybe you should seek consouling


and may I ask you who exactly are the Lutherna Church accountable to for it's doctrine?

I'm unaware that Luthereans allow for Laymen to make changes and suggestions to what should be doctrine and what should not be doctrine

you answers reak of an agenda and double standards.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

you seem to dodge questions.

I answered them all - very completely and repeatedly (threatening myself with a spam accusation).

may I ask you who exactly are the Lutherna Church accountable to for it's doctrine?

Off topic, but....

the WHO is God. But the issue here is the WHAT - that's the relevant question here. And the answer to that is: Scripture. I realize as a Catholic, you must reject both (and the entire issue of accountability) - but the issue here is not what we believe, the issue is what is Sola Scriptura (and this thing the opening poster calls "Solo Scriptura" - I can't comment on that, never heard of it, other than it's bad grammar).





.

 

[GandolftheWhite]

I answered them all - very completely and repeatedly (threatening myself with a spam accusation).





Off topic, but....

the WHO is God. But the issue here is the WHAT - that's the relevant question here. And the answer to that is: Scripture. I realize as a Catholic, you must reject both (and the entire issue of accountability) - but the issue here is not what we believe, the issue is what is Sola Scriptura (and this thing the opening poster calls "Solo Scriptura" - I can't comment on that, never heard of it, other than it's bad grammar).







No you haven't not in the slightest, you dance you dodge but can't answer the question because when relying soley on Sola Scriptura when the disputes aren't black and white Sola Scriptura falls flat

so
who makes the Lutheran Churchs Doctrines
Who makes the lutheran Churchs' Dogmas
Who decides how the faith is to be carried out in the Lutheran Tradition
Who makes the decision for your Church.
Who is accountable for upholding all of this?

and no it's not off topic, you like to bring out the RCC is every breathe you utter so why not throw the question right back at you.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Sola Scriptura when the disputes aren't black and white Sola Scriptura falls flat

You're opinion; you are entitled to it.

IMO, having no rule and accepting no accountability is not a more sound rule or arbitration. But we seem to disagree on that. It seems to ME you simply don't know what the Rule of Scripture is (and no one seems able to do anything about that) and you keep confusing and mixing up the issues of accountability, norming, rule/canon, hermeneutics, and arbitration - you simply don't seem to know the difference. It's been explained very well to you - I think that's the best any can do.

who makes the Lutheran Churchs Doctrines
Who makes the lutheran Churchs' Dogmas
Who decides how the faith is to be carried out in the Lutheran Tradition
Who makes the decision for your Church.
Who is accountable for upholding all of this?

1. I don't claim to know the exact NAMES of all the persons involved. I doubt in most cases it's known. The overwhelming majority of what Lutherans teach is the same as in Catholicism, and most of it goes back to a time when names were'nt always recorded.

2. I'm struggling to think of a unique Lutheran dogma. But the articulation of SOME of what Lutheranism teaches is recorded in the Book of Concord of 1580 (not a single word or letter has changed or been added or subtracted or developed since then). It lists the Apostles and Nicene Creeds first as Tradition - there is no specific, singular WHO that wrote those, to my knowledge. After and under that, are The Lutheran Confession. Whether one could regard these as "doctrine" or as "dogma" is another issue. The Lutheran Confessions were largely written vis-a-vis Catholicism (which of course excommunicated Luther and several of the Lutheran ECF). The RCC asked the Lutherans to write some articles of affirmation, in response to the RCC's request, the Augsburg Confession was written. Philip Melanchthon is largely responsible for writing that for the RCC. You might be interested in your current Pope's statements about it. The Defense of the Augsburg Confession is a clarification after some RCC comments were made. Melanchthon is the author there, too (since the original document was at his pen). There are a lot of issues there, some doctrinal in nature, many not. Tjat's the longest among scholars the most quoted part (by far). The Small and Large Catechisms are also in that collection; both written by Luther (who was not the author of the great majority of the Lutheran Confessions). The Small was actually a poster designed to help parents train their children in the teachings of the church. It's about 10 pages long, and this serves as the "confession" for laity. When I was instructed in Lutheranism, this was used. When I was Confirmed, I was asked if I accepted the Holy Scriptures as the inscribed word of God, the sole rule for doctrine, and if I was in agreement with the Small Catechism under that. It's therefore the most important part (have you read it?) the Large Catechism was written for the MANY Catholic priests fleeing Catholicism - most very untrained. The content is the same as the Small, but directed to priests. The Formula of Concord comes after Luther's death when there were some issues of controversy. Various sides met and worked out all of those, the resulting end document is called "The Formula of Concord" (concord = agreement). It's often known simply as "Concordia." Among many things there, the definition of Sola Scriptura is found there. It is simply the result of those gatherings and thus has no "who" as an author.


I hope we can return to the issue - which is WHAT is the Rule in the norming of disputed doctrines among us. This thread is not about WHO, it's about WHAT - WHAT serves as the rule/norma normans (moot to you as a Catholic, I realize).





.

 

[Hairy Tic]

 

[file13]

Well, I googled "boar in the vineyard" and I found the original reference. Gave me a chuckle, thanks for that.

My pleasure!

Perhaps I would be more accurate in defining the alternate as "ecclesial authority of the church as expressed in holy tradition". I was using apostolic succession to refer to the alternative, as a place-marker, if you will, and did not intend to mean that it is itself the entire solution.

Again brother, sola scriptura asserts the absolute necessity of ecclesial authority. An episcopal form of government, presbyterian, or a congregational one are all clear examples of the fact that sola scriptura requires the church and it's authority. Apostolic succession is simply something attached to an episcopal form of government and as I've mentioned, it's not unique to RCC or EO (nor is an episcopal model which exists even in churches who do not have apostolic succession such as Methodists). The point is that all of this again points to the fact that we in no way reject the authority of the church. The real question is "what authority does the church have?"

It is, however, one one essential part of the formula that is the requirements for the church, that is, it must be apostolic in origin (there are perhaps 3 or maybe 4 bodies which claim this). If the church does not have a historical tie, by means of apostolic succession, they cannot claim to be apostolic.

Well that's one way of looking at it. Another quite simple way of looking at it (and the one supported by Scripture) is simply that a church is apostolic if it follows the teachings of the apostles. Where do we find the teachings of the apostles? Scripture.

Of course in this view, apostolic succession is not a requirement, but rather that we are holding to the apostles teachings. The only place we can all go to in order to affirm their teachings in Scripture. No one can confirm the validity of an oral tradition. But one can can affirm a written one, and thus, any church which follows the teachings of the apostles as revealed in Scripture bears this "mark" of the church.

I disagree with you that apostolic succession is not found in scripture however, but I won't make this a large point of contention here (for the moment, at least).

I understand. But if you do, I'd remind you to avoid eisegesis. Why? Because an episcopal government does not require "apostolic succession." So in order to establish this claim that it is scriptural, you'll need to show it's definition from Scripture along with proof of this definition.

I agree there are real differences between the two, but I believe it boils down to interpretative authority, and whether that is in the individual or the church. I believe both place the ultimate authority in the individual, which I will discuss later.

Amen. As I've mentioned over and over again, sola scriptura assumes that the individual is under the church.

Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?

"Whereas solo scriptura rejects the interpretive authority of the Church and the derivative authority of the creeds, sola scriptura affirms the interpretive authority of the Church and the derivative authority of the creeds, except when they teach something contrary to one’s conscience, as informed by one’s own interpretation of Scripture."

No. This is the definition of solo or nuda scriptura (notice the bold part). If everyone gets a veto button and is allowed to hit it on any doctrine they don't like then they are not under the authority of the church. This is what allows Rob Bell, like St. Issac the Syrian before him, to spew the same old heresy in a new way. The only difference is that Rob Bell is not bound by anything (solo scriptura) whereas St. Issac, being a holy man, is treated as a part of tradition and thus, his teachings are quietly allowed (prima scriptura or regula fide).

I refer to it as the middleman here, because it's authority is subjected to the authority of scripture. Here's a picture from the SS POV of authority:

Scripture---->Church---->Believer

Scripture has authority over Church, and Church has authority over believer. But does it? The Believer cannot be bound to the church, unless the church is bound to scripture. But how does the Believer actually determine whether the church is bound to scripture? Individual interpretation. Therefore, the believer is ultimately subservient to the scripture, not the church, where the church acts as a middle-man, in this sense. I'll say more on this later, after I get more feedback from you regarding the above passage.

Do you see what you're doing here brother? You're assuming a definition of "the church" prior to this thought and erroneously calling this definition sola scriptura. As I said earlier, the real question is "what authority does the church have?"

So in reality, how one defines the church will give you a clear answer to this question. From a classical Protestant (Magisterial Reformers) POV, a church is a body of believers where the Gospel is taught and the sacraments distributed. Implicit in this definition is the belief that the Gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ as the substitutionary atonement for our sins and expressed in the doctrine of sola gratia/sola fide. The sacraments are the two revealed in Scripture, baptism and the eucharist.

Notice, there is no claim of any part of the body to be the "One and Only True Church." Notice also that if one is a member in this part of the body, and this body, the church, is holding faithfully to these requirements, then one should respect their authority on matters where the church has authority. But of course, in this POV, the church also does not claim that it has the ability to infallibly bind or lose the interpretation of any given doctrine. Outside of these bare essentials, the church is not understood to have the authority to interpret Scripture infallibly, but simply to the best of it's ability.

So you see, your entire question assumes that the church is basically RCC or EO to begin with (and not as you claim, SS). None of your concerns really apply to the Protestant or evangelical understanding of "the church." Why? Because the individual is not assumed to be "subservient" to the church in all matters of doctrine and practice.

So what you really need to ask before you can ask these questions is "what authority does the church have" and "what authority does Scripture have?" Only then can you really see why this argument is only valid for RCC or EO Christians who already reject sola scriptura.

BTW, welcome to the "via media!" Not sure how long you've been a member, but I think traditional anglicans share much more in common with the EO than most denominations do.

Thanks, but remember, Anglicans are Protestants who shed their blood for the beliefs expressed in the five solas. We also don't claim to be The One True Church, but rather Christians first, and a specific type of Christian second....

 

[file13]

Excellent post, as usual. And very informative. (Not sure if it's accurate,
but it sure did sound good!)
I disagree with your suggestion though, that those who dare to fly solo on
reading the Bible are taking the church out of the equation. Unless I missed
something, but I think I understood you.
As i pasted in another thread, 23 But the seed falling on good soil refers
to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who
produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”
We are the church, and each of us a part of the body of Christ, living stones.
But that doesnt take away from the fact that we're men, individuals who
read Scripture, and pray and reason ALONE as individuals as well.
It's often when I am alone that I experience a deeper fellowship with
the Father, and it's naturally during such time and in such an atmosphere
that one might expect God to REveal things to us, His children..
Jesus didn't die on the cross so we could have church services..He died
that He might change the world.

God bless you!

Thanks! But going off of what you're saying here, this is not what is meant by "solo scriptura." One of the marks of Scripture shared by evangelicals is it's "clarity," which not only asserts that those things which Scripture means to make plain, it does make plain, but also assumes that anyone can and should read these things and understand them for themselves. So the only evangelicals I'm swiping with this broad brush are those who are not a part of a church. They need to be. Sure there's exceptions here and there based mostly on temporal or locale problems, but the point is, Christianity is not a solo sport. It's a team effort and we are called to be a part of Christ's body, the church.

So yes, read Scripture at home and praise God if you do! But if you're not a member of a church, you need to be.

That being said, the thing that keeps happening in our discussion with brother ortho_cat is that he keeps blurring the issue of authority with the issue of interpretation. This is pretty common amongst RCC and EO Christians, but I don't think most of them do it intentionally. As CaliforniaJosiah has pointed out very well above, sola scriptura is not an issue of interpretation of Scripture, but of "norming" or treating Scripture as "the normative" source of authority. All these appeals of people wildly interpertating Scripture to mean anything they want it to mean are in reality, not getting to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that in sola scriptura, Scripture gets the final say on an issue and if something is not scriptural, one is not bound to believe it.

So the issue is not "do we baptize infants or not," but rather "you're not required to pray to departed saints because the practice is not supported by Scripture." In the former question, the necessity of baptism is affirmed by all parties because it's necessity is clear from Scripture. The dispute is over putting the doctrine into practice because how the act itself is to be performed is simply not clear from Scripture (though folks on either side might make this claim). In the latter, since the doctrine is not supported by Scripture, the only questions which Scripture allows are if the practice is still allowed optionally or not? This is the purpose of the doctrine and it has to do with limiting the authority of the church to that clearly revealed in Scripture.

In any case, I'm not sure what I said about solo scriptura applies to what you're saying unless you're not a part of the church. If you're not, I must sister, if I love you as a fellow adopted sister and daughter of Christ, urge you to join a church where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments administered as soon as possible. We're spiritually speaking, family, and so we're in this together and need each other.

 

[Dorothea]

And further, did God intend for us not to know the true meaning of the baptism and the eucharist after it had been revealed to the apostles, and after they were instructed to teach others the same?

There is definitely absolute Truth - God. And therefore, there is correct and truth of what's understood in the Scriptures. Indeed, through the Scriptures, with the guidance of His Spirit, we see there is only one Way, one truth, and not a variety of truths. Just one. It's a question on who is adhering to this truth in their understanding of the Scriptures?

 

[Kristos]

Why doesn't it work then? Why doesn't this normative practice norm anything? After 2000 years of norming, how much less normal could those who gather together be?

 

[sunlover1]

Thanks! But going off of what you're saying here, this is not what is meant by "solo scriptura." One of the marks of Scripture shared by evangelicals is it's "clarity," which not only asserts that those things which Scripture means to make plain, it does make plain, but also assumes that anyone can and should read these things and understand them for themselves. So the only evangelicals I'm swiping with this broad brush are those who are not a part of a church. They need to be. Sure there's exceptions here and there based mostly on temporal or locale problems, but the point is, Christianity is not a solo sport. It's a team effort and we are called to be a part of Christ's body, the church.

So yes, read Scripture at home and praise God if you do! But if you're not a member of a church, you need to be.

Could you be wrong? (Only about the being a member of "A" church)
I happen to think you could. The way I understand it, is we ARE a part of
Christs body, "The Church" once we're reborn. And so while I AM and have
been a part of His church. I did indeed join a local assembly a few years
ago. But before that, I was just as much a member of the church and no,
it's not a solo thing at all. We are not islands unto ourselves lest we fall
and there is no soldier there to watch for us. kwim?

That being said, the thing that keeps happening in our discussion with brother ortho_cat is that he keeps blurring the issue of authority with the issue of interpretation.

I see that as well.

This is pretty common amongst RCC and EO Christians, but I don't think most of them do it intentionally.

I also agree / why would anyone do that intentionally, imo.

As CaliforniaJosiah has pointed out very well above, sola scriptura is not an issue of interpretation of Scripture, but of "norming" or treating Scripture as "the normative" source of authority. All these appeals of people wildly interpertating Scripture to mean anything they want it to mean are in reality, not getting to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that in sola scriptura, Scripture gets the final say on an issue and if something is not scriptural, one is not bound to believe it.

Nor are they wise to do so. Amen.

In any case, I'm not sure what I said about solo scriptura applies to what you're saying unless you're not a part of the church. If you're not, I must sister, if I love you as a fellow adopted sister and daughter of Christ, urge you to join a church where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments administered as soon as possible.

I can't HELP but be a part of the church because I was born into that.
but as far as getting together with other like minded individuals, I
cant help but do that either. My town IS a church more or less lol. I'm
very blessed indeed . God is good! AND God brought me to a local
assembly

We're spiritually speaking, family, and so we're in this together and need each other.

Made this bigger because I believe it's the principal thing

Praise Be To God!

 

[sunlover1]

Why doesn't it work then? Why doesn't this normative practice norm anything? After 2000 years of norming, how much less normal could those who gather together be?

Hi Kristos
IKR? Like the filioque disagreement. Why? Same thing.
Why can't you give five students the same math lesson and have all of them "get it"? Same principle.
Because we're not all at the same level of understanding.
We're not all at the same level of maturity in Christ.
We're not all at the same level of anything.
But God's Word is still the best rule I know of.

 

[Dorothea]

Hi Kristos
IKR? Like the filioque disagreement. Why? Same thing.
Why can't you give five students the same math lesson and have all of them "get it"? Same principle.
Because we're not all at the same level of understanding.
We're not all at the same level of maturity in Christ.
We're not all at the same level of anything.
But God's Word is still the best rule I know of.

People can have a different level of understanding and spiritual maturity level, but believe the same thing as those farther along in their spiritual growth and journey. In other words, we cannot understand as well as those ahead of us, but we're striving through prayer and life in Him to get to point and further on.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi Kristos
IKR? Like the filioque disagreement. Why? Same thing.
Why can't you give five students the same math lesson and have all of them "get it"? Same principle.
Because we're not all at the same level of understanding.
We're not all at the same level of maturity in Christ.
We're not all at the same level of anything.
But God's Word is still the best rule I know of.

That does appear to be a biggy from what I have seen [I really never understood it myself ]

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602/#post54128344

Scholasticism
Filioque
Papal Supremacy
Immaculate Conception

http://www.christianforums.com/t7500732-3/#post55746216
The "Athanasian Creed" and the filioque???

Did this creed ever have much use in the East? Does it actually endorse the filioque, or is it anachronistic to read that into the creed?

Just curious. Some Protestant and Catholic scholars seem to point to this in affirmation that the filioque was in fact ancient and in line with the theology of the councils and of Athanasius himself.

Thanks!

 

[file13]

Why doesn't it work then? Why doesn't this normative practice norm anything? After 2000 years of norming, how much less normal could those who gather together be?

Can you be more specific on which essentials are disputed amongst orthodox evangelicals?

 

[file13]

Made this bigger because I believe it's the principal thing

Praise Be To God!

Thanks!

Anyways, I think I smell what you're stepping in and absolutely would agree with your observation that when Christ chose you, you were adopted into His body even before you joined a local church. Amen amen amen!

 

[Kristos]

Can you be more specific on which essentials are disputed amongst orthodox evangelicals?

who are the orthodox evangelicals?

I'm not look at details. If you take a step back and look at christianity in general, would you say that the are more or less normal than 2000 years ago?

Specifics would only bring methods of resolution into the discussion.

 

[sunlover1]

People can have a different level of understanding and spiritual maturity level, but believe the same thing as those farther along in their spiritual growth and journey. In other words, we cannot understand as well as those ahead of us, but we're striving through prayer and life in Him to get to point and further on.

Hey DZ! God bless you.
(Or should that be ZD?)
Amen. I did believe for years that Jesus was God because it was what
I was taught to believe. And I believed it for no other reason than that.
Same with baptism, same with communion.
And there's nothing wrong with this! But there
is a better way. Jesus challenged men to "think".
So while the one way is not bad, the other way
is better FOR the person in question. IMO. Because
the more we understand the more we know how
to navigate in the kingdom of God.
EIther way does it affect God?
Or is it effect. Oh, those two get me every time !

Anyhow, those are just my thoughts.
B blessed.