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

[ARBITER01]

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.

So we are to accept a "secondary" source as authority over the actual primary writings of our apostles?

How is that logical?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


I'm wasting my time and setting myself up for a spam violation but.....




An Example:


The dispute -

The Big Fat Denomination says that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that the earthly father of Jesus was named Eric.

The Russian Skyrocket Denomination says that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that the earthly father of Jesus was named Robert.

The Hillbilly Mountain Denomination says that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that the earthly father of Jesus was named Joseph.


The possibilities -

1. They all could be right.

2. They all could be wrong.

3. One or two could be right, one or two could be wrong.

4. It cannot be determined with sufficient realiability (to the level claimed)



The key issue -

The key issue that MUST be addressed first is this: Does truth matter? If truthfulness and honesty in Christian dogma doesn't matter, then there's no need to proceed. Who gives a rip? "What is truth?" as Pontius Pilate sarcastically put it.

But if truth does matter, then we've embraced accountability. But we aren't done: does accountability apply only to Hillbilly Mountain Church but not to the Russian Skyrocket Church? Is the RSC church exempt from the issue of accountability because it itself exempts it itself from this process? Because it demands "I'm right so I'm right when I say I'm right, so I'm right - so there?"

THIS is the point where many Protestants depart from the RCC and LDS (and if you are correct, perhaps the EO). Protestants tend to embrace that all teachers AMONG US - our current denominations for example - are accountable, none is exempt on the basis that self so exempts self alone. The RCC insists that it is too special, too close to Jesus to be accountable. It DEMANDS that all OTHERS are fully, immediately and passionately accountable (it was burning people at the stake long before Luther was born) but it is not. Thus, at this point - the RCC (and LDS and maybe EO) exit the issue. "My position is exempt from the issue of truth."


So, the FIRST ISSUE (and the foundational one) is this: Does it matter? Does truth matter? Is accountability embraced or rejected (at least for self)?



Norming -

For those remaining, accountability has been embraced. Truth matters. So, we now have that issue before us: What was the name of Jesus' earthly father? Is the BFC right? Is the RSC right? Is the HMC right? Or are they all, or are none of them, or can't it be determined definitively?

Norming is the issue of determining correctness, truthfulness, validity...

Those who rejected accountability (for self anyway) aren't "here" for a very simple reason - they regard it as moot.



The Rule -

The first order of business (if you will) for those who care and who embrace accountability (and thus norming) is to agree upon the most sound, common rule ("straight edge")/ canon ("measuring stick")/ norma normans ("norm that norms"). Without a common rule - nothing can be accomplished. This is our "plumbline" our "standard."

In epistemology, the best norma normans is the one that is most objectively knowable by all and alterable by none (above and beyond all parties), seen as reliable by all suffient for this determination (it need not be inerrant, obviously - although it would be GREAT if it were so embraced by all parties), and the one with the most historical and broad embrace. In my field (physics - I work in scientific research), we use math and laborative evidence (both with rather carefully defined terms). We don't believe either if inerrant but we subject all views to those canons - which are outside, above and beyond all, including the proponents of the various views - a very flawed process (we know) but the best we have, the most sound available. What would be rejected as the most flawed would be the views of self as the rule/canon for the views of self - If I say it's so, it's so, so if I say it - it's so. Circles always lead you home - but not necessarily to truth.

So, the second issue is for a consensus among all as to the common rule. THIS IS THE SOLE ISSUE OF THE RULE OF SCRIPTURE (what Luther and Calvin called Sola Scriptura). Yes, it assumes the previous issues - that truth matters and thus accountability matters and that norming is to be embraced.



The Arbitration -

But, of course, all agreeing to embrace norming and a common norma normans resolves nothing. NO ONE SAID IT DID - you keep harping on some false notion that Sola Scripture is some authoritative ruling when it has been stressed - over and over - that the Rule of Scripture is using Scripture as the rule - not arbitration. I suspect this comes from the RCC/LDS understanding of "authority" as unmitigated, unaccountable POWER to lord it over others.... Whatever the reason, you seem to keep missing this.

You also seem to miss that arbitration is needed because each individual will just interpreter some verse and the process ends. This, I'm sure, is because of the RCC/LDS enormous emphasis on individual interpretation and the HUGE emphasis given to the POWER (lordship) of self interpreting stuff (see CCC 85 and 87 for example). You keep missing - over and over and over - that embracing the Rule of Scripture in norming is embracing Scripture as the Rule, it's not a principle of hermeneutics.

In arbitration, there is some process ALSO agreed upon whereby a resolution will be attempted. RESOLUTION is not the same thing as INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE DECLARATION. It seems, we're going to resolve the debate. ACCORDING TO A RULE.

Let's say you insist you were not speeding. A friendly policeman insists that you were. There is a dispute. This may go to arbitration (court) and the court will operate UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. Whether you were speeding MATTERS (you cannot exempt yourself from the issue cuz you just do), there is a knowable/objective Rule applying to all (you, the policeman, the judge, the jury), it will be arbitrated. Now, do we believe that every decision of every courtroom is 100% infallibly correct? But embracing accountability for all, embracing a common objective reliable rule over all, and a sound arbitive process probably leads to that better than any other process. So much so, that typically it resolves the issue ( VERY few cases are appealed - and if they do, are overturned). Keeping the process open and UNDER THE LAW - the embraced rule - is important, of course.


Now, let's get back to our example.... Maybe all 3 denominations have the humility and the respect for truth to accept accountability - thus norming. Perhaps all 3 accept that Scripture is reliable for this purpose. We have embraced accountability/norming and we have embraced a common rule. Now (if necessary) we go to arbitration UNDER THAT RULE (Scripture). Not that Rule plus whatever the Hillbilly Mountain Denomination teaches or Scripture PLUS whatever the Holy Spirit happens to secretly whisper to the leader of the Russian Skyrocket Church. Now, as we look at Scripture (alone) - we can together likely resolve this one, don't you think?

Can you always? No. Sometimes the conclusion is that the position cannot be determined to a level that resolves it. Perhaps instead of the name of Jesus' father, the debate was the name of his dog? Perhaps the conclusion would be: "it cannot be determined - definitively - who (if anyone) is correct on this."

Thus, arbitration can have 3 possible outcomes: The view is right (doctrine), the view is wrong (heresy) or the view is indeterminant (neither dogma or heresy).



The RCC/LDS "problem"

The RCC (and maybe EO) left the building WAY back at step one: Accountability. It never engaged in ANY aspect of norming (at least for its own positions) because it never accepted the even theoretical possibllity that it MIGHT be wrong. It rejects accountability and the issue of Truth and replaces it with the issue of POWER (it likes to call it "authority") that is unmitigated, unaccountable and divine. Quiet, docilic SUBMISSION to ITSELF is the issue, not truth. It's left the room... Thus, it's objection to the Rule of Scripture (and any other, in the case of itself).

I had a Greek Orthodox friend explain to me why arbitation is so difficult. She LONGED for the POSSIBILITY of a real Ecumenical Council today but said this: "Image that the Eighth Council was planned! Say for Sydney, Australia! Church leaders from around the world are invited, prayers by over 2 billion Christians are raised up to God! Delegates check into the hotel for what could be many weeks. Then they gather in the large hall for the opening worship service, telecast live around the world. It's lead by Anglican Archbishop, with participants from dozens of churches worldwide. People join - boldly and faithfully - in signing "Lift High the Cross" and all join - each in their own tongue - in praying the Lord's Prayer. HOPE fills - supersaturates - the room! After the service, the Orthodox and Lutheran representatives literally embrace, the Methodist and Baptist enjoy stories of their ministries and pray for each other - love fills the room. Then they are called back for the opening session. Each takes their spot. The Orthodox representive leads the opening prayer, and then the Chairman comes to the podium - a Lutheran. The Chairman calls the meeting to order and immediately the Catholic representative stands and demands to be recognized. He is out of the order, but the Chairman desires to open on an evanglical/embracing note. The Catholic speaks into the mic: "I'm infallible. I CANNOT be wrong in these matters. When I speak, Jesus is speaking. I'm right because I agree with me, you are wrong because you don't agree with me. Does anyone have any questions?" You could hear a pin drop...... Silence fills the room..... The Orthodox representative, still nearby from the opening prayer, leans over to the Chairman, covers the mic with his hand, and says "We told 'ya." The Pentecostal representative calls for adjournment of the Council. The Catholic seconds it. And everyone goes home.....



There are THREE pieces of the "puzzle" - to resolution (see my signature of every post).

1. Acountability - with none exempting self cuz self does.
2. A COMMON sound, knowable, objective rule/canon.
3. A COMMON arbitration that at least largely resolves the debate.

The RCC and LDS have no "pieces" at all. They reject # 1 (making 2 and 3 entirely moot).

Many Protestants have # 1 AND #2. Sadly, they don't have # 3. That means, we still have MUCH work to do - but it puts us 2 steps ahead of the RCC and LDS (and maybe the EO). But yes - a COMMON arbitration exists NOWHERE (and hasn't for some 1200 years) - even a flawed and poor one. All we've had for 1200 years is DENOMINATIONAL, we can arbitrate to resolution things on that level (as the RCC and LDS also do) but not ECUMENICALLY. Lutherans long for this. But we need a sense of humility and community before it is possible. Luther inherited a Christianity SUPERSATURATED with pride, individualism, institutionalism. He helped, he by no means "solved" things - and NO ONE claims he did. We have 2 pieces of resolution, 2 more than the RCC (and from you, it seems than the EO) but while that helps - it doesn't "fix" the mess created by the RC (and as I've gleen from you, the EO).


I doubt that accomplished anything.....
Yup, it's all been said several times before....




.

 

[MKJ]

I do think there is a difference between the two outlooks, and it is a pretty big one.

I think sola scriptura where the community must understand scripture together is way way closer to the Catholic, and perhaps especially to the Orthodox view. Those groups see the Truth is given through the Church (the community) and Scripture/Tradition, and those forms of Protestantism also see those things as authoritative. It is simply a somwhat different hierarchy of those elements, a slightly different view of what is essential and what is not, and slightly different view of how the community is stuctured.

But for both, faith is not only in the truth of scripture, but in the way the Holy Spirit protects the Church.

In solo scriptura (I also am not crazy about the term) there is nothing outside the text allowed. I don't actually think this is really a coherent position though, because it does not explain how the Scriptures themselves came to exist, and strictly speaking, it doesn't allow for the interpretation of the individual, since that comes from outside of Scripture. But of course no one comes to a text as a blank slate, and thinking one does is dangerous.

As for whether they are ultimately the same - well, maybe? I think if you look at how they operate, they are pretty clearly different in many ways. Confessional Christianity is a lot different than the most extreme individualist Christianity. But it may be that one leads to another. My initial thought is that it is perhaps more a matter of a different understanding of the Church than of scripture really, and that sola scriptura, and then sola scriptura, both flow from a misunderstanding of the hierarchy and nature of the Church.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

So we are to accept a "secondary" source as authority over the actual primary writings of our apostles?

How is that logical?

this thread isn't about SS vs. Tradition.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I do think there is a difference between the two outlooks, and it is a pretty big one.

I think sola scriptura where the community must understand scripture together is way way closer to the Catholic, and perhaps especially to the Orthodox view. Those groups see the Truth is given through the Church (the community) and Scripture/Tradition, and those forms of Protestantism also see those things as authoritative. It is simply a somwhat different hierarchy of those elements, a slightly different view of what is essential and what is not, and slightly different view of how the community is stuctured.

But for both, faith is not only in the truth of scripture, but in the way the Holy Spirit protects the Church.

In solo scriptura (I also am not crazy about the term) there is nothing outside the text allowed. I don't actually think this is really a coherent position though, because it does not explain how the Scriptures themselves came to exist, and strictly speaking, it doesn't allow for the interpretation of the individual, since that comes from outside of Scripture. But of course no one comes to a text as a blank slate, and thinking one does is dangerous.

As for whether they are ultimately the same - well, maybe? I think if you look at how they operate, they are pretty clearly different in many ways. Confessional Christianity is a lot different than the most extreme individualist Christianity. But it may be that one leads to another. My initial thought is that it is perhaps more a matter of a different understanding of the Church than of scripture really, and that sola scriptura, and then sola scriptura, both flow from a misunderstanding of the hierarchy and nature of the Church.

Let's say there are two drivers - both of which embrace the Rule of Law. One thinks the the handbook he got from Department of Motor Vehicles was written by the Hand of God and floated down to that counter at the DMV from heaven. Another thinks that the State enacted those laws and the DMV printed that booklet (in China, no less - it was cheaper). They both embrace themselves as accountable and they both embrace that given any dispute - the Rule of Law governs. Do you see a huge difference between them as they drive or as disputes are resolved?

Do you see a bigger difference in the driver that insists he is above the law ( any law), unaccountable, infallible, exempt from the issue of whether he is driving correctly or not, exempt form any issue related to his driving (or anything else for that matter) and that whatever he is doing IS the definition of what should be done?





.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

.


I'm wasting my time and setting myself up for a spam violation but.....




An Example:


The dispute -

The Big Fat Denomination says that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that the earthly father of Jesus was named Eric.

The Russian Skyrocket Denomination says that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that the earthly father of Jesus was named Robert.

The Hillbilly Mountain Denomination says that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that the earthly father of Jesus was named Joseph.


The possibilities -

1. They all could be right.

2. They all could be wrong.

3. One or two could be right, one or two could be wrong.

4. It cannot be determined with sufficient realiability (to the level claimed)



The key issue -

The key issue that MUST be addressed first is this: Does truth matter? If truthfulness and honesty in Christian dogma doesn't matter, then there's no need to proceed. Who gives a rip? "What is truth?" as Pontius Pilate sarcastically put it.

But if truth does matter, then we've embraced accountability. But we aren't done: does accountability apply only to Hillbilly Mountain Church but not to the Russian Skyrocket Church? Is the RSC church exempt from the issue of accountability because it itself exempts it itself from this process? Because it demands "I'm right so I'm right when I say I'm right, so I'm right - so there?"

THIS is the point where many Protestants depart from the RCC and LDS (and if you are correct, perhaps the EO). Protestants tend to embrace that all teachers AMONG US - our current denominations for example - are accountable, none is exempt on the basis that self so exempts self alone. The RCC insists that it is too special, too close to Jesus to be accountable. It DEMANDS that all OTHERS are fully, immediately and passionately accountable (it was burning people at the stake long before Luther was born) but it is not. Thus, at this point - the RCC (and LDS and maybe EO) exit the issue. "My position is exempt from the issue of truth."


So, the FIRST ISSUE (and the foundational one) is this: Does it matter? Does truth matter? Is accountability embraced or rejected (at least for self)?



Norming -

For those remaining, accountability has been embraced. Truth matters. So, we now have that issue before us: What was the name of Jesus' earthly father? Is the BFC right? Is the RSC right? Is the HMC right? Or are they all, or are none of them, or can't it be determined definitively?

Norming is the issue of determining correctness, truthfulness, validity...

Those who rejected accountability (for self anyway) aren't "here" for a very simple reason - they regard it as moot.



The Rule -

The first order of business (if you will) for those who care and who embrace accountability (and thus norming) is to agree upon the most sound, common rule ("straight edge")/ canon ("measuring stick")/ norma normans ("norm that norms"). Without a common rule - nothing can be accomplished. This is our "plumbline" our "standard."

In epistemology, the best norma normans is the one that is most objectively knowable by all and alterable by none (above and beyond all parties), seen as reliable by all suffient for this determination (it need not be inerrant, obviously - although it would be GREAT if it were so embraced by all parties), and the one with the most historical and broad embrace. In my field (physics - I work in scientific research), we use math and laborative evidence (both with rather carefully defined terms). We don't believe either if inerrant but we subject all views to those canons - which are outside, above and beyond all, including the proponents of the various views - a very flawed process (we know) but the best we have, the most sound available. What would be rejected as the most flawed would be the views of self as the rule/canon for the views of self - If I say it's so, it's so, so if I say it - it's so. Circles always lead you home - but not necessarily to truth.

So, the second issue is for a consensus among all as to the common rule. THIS IS THE SOLE ISSUE OF THE RULE OF SCRIPTURE (what Luther and Calvin called Sola Scriptura). Yes, it assumes the previous issues - that truth matters and thus accountability matters and that norming is to be embraced.



The Arbitration -

But, of course, all agreeing to embrace norming and a common norma normans resolves nothing. NO ONE SAID IT DID - you keep harping on some false notion that Sola Scripture is some authoritative ruling when it has been stressed - over and over - that the Rule of Scripture is using Scripture as the rule - not arbitration. I suspect this comes from the RCC/LDS understanding of "authority" as unmitigated, unaccountable POWER to lord it over others.... Whatever the reason, you seem to keep missing this.

You also seem to miss that arbitration is needed because each individual will just interpreter some verse and the process ends. This, I'm sure, is because of the RCC/LDS enormous emphasis on individual interpretation and the HUGE emphasis given to the POWER (lordship) of self interpreting stuff (see CCC 85 and 87 for example). You keep missing - over and over and over - that embracing the Rule of Scripture in norming is embracing Scripture as the Rule, it's not a principle of hermeneutics.

In arbitration, there is some process ALSO agreed upon whereby a resolution will be attempted. RESOLUTION is not the same thing as INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE DECLARATION. It seems, we're going to resolve the debate. ACCORDING TO A RULE.

Let's say you insist you were not speeding. A friendly policeman insists that you were. There is a dispute. This may go to arbitration (court) and the court will operate UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. Whether you were speeding MATTERS (you cannot exempt yourself from the issue cuz you just do), there is a knowable/objective Rule applying to all (you, the policeman, the judge, the jury), it will be arbitrated. Now, do we believe that every decision of every courtroom is 100% infallibly correct? But embracing accountability for all, embracing a common objective reliable rule over all, and a sound arbitive process probably leads to that better than any other process. So much so, that typically it resolves the issue ( VERY few cases are appealed - and if they do, are overturned). Keeping the process open and UNDER THE LAW - the embraced rule - is important, of course.


Now, let's get back to our example.... Maybe all 3 denominations have the humility and the respect for truth to accept accountability - thus norming. Perhaps all 3 accept that Scripture is reliable for this purpose. We have embraced accountability/norming and we have embraced a common rule. Now (if necessary) we go to arbitration UNDER THAT RULE (Scripture). Not that Rule plus whatever the Hillbilly Mountain Denomination teaches or Scripture PLUS whatever the Holy Spirit happens to secretly whisper to the leader of the Russian Skyrocket Church. Now, as we look at Scripture (alone) - we can together likely resolve this one, don't you think?

Can you always? No. Sometimes the conclusion is that the position cannot be determined to a level that resolves it. Perhaps instead of the name of Jesus' father, the debate was the name of his dog? Perhaps the conclusion would be: "it cannot be determined - definitively - who (if anyone) is correct on this."

Thus, arbitration can have 3 possible outcomes: The view is right (doctrine), the view is wrong (heresy) or the view is indeterminant (neither dogma or heresy).



The RCC/LDS "problem"

The RCC (and maybe EO) left the building WAY back at step one: Accountability. It never engaged in ANY aspect of norming (at least for its own positions) because it never accepted the even theoretical possibllity that it MIGHT be wrong. It rejects accountability and the issue of Truth and replaces it with the issue of POWER (it likes to call it "authority") that is unmitigated, unaccountable and divine. Quiet, docilic SUBMISSION to ITSELF is the issue, not truth. It's left the room... Thus, it's objection to the Rule of Scripture (and any other, in the case of itself).

I had a Greek Orthodox friend explain to me why arbitation is so difficult. She LONGED for the POSSIBILITY of a real Ecumenical Council today but said this: "Image that the Eighth Council was planned! Say for Sydney, Australia! Church leaders from around the world are invited, prayers by over 2 billion Christians are raised up to God! Delegates check into the hotel for what could be many weeks. Then they gather in the large hall for the opening worship service, telecast live around the world. It's lead by Anglican Archbishop, with participants from dozens of churches worldwide. People join - boldly and faithfully - in signing "Lift High the Cross" and all join - each in their own tongue - in praying the Lord's Prayer. HOPE fills - supersaturates - the room! After the service, the Orthodox and Lutheran representatives literally embrace, the Methodist and Baptist enjoy stories of their ministries and pray for each other - love fills the room. Then they are called back for the opening session. Each takes their spot. The Orthodox representive leads the opening prayer, and then the Chairman comes to the podium - a Lutheran. The Chairman calls the meeting to order and immediately the Catholic representative stands and demands to be recognized. He is out of the order, but the Chairman desires to open on an evanglical/embracing note. The Catholic speaks into the mic: "I'm infallible. I CANNOT be wrong in these matters. When I speak, Jesus is speaking. I'm right because I agree with me, you are wrong because you don't agree with me. Does anyone have any questions?" You could hear a pin drop...... Silence fills the room..... The Orthodox representative, still nearby from the opening prayer, leans over to the Chairman, covers the mic with his hand, and says "We told 'ya." The Pentecostal representative calls for adjournment of the Council. The Catholic seconds it. And everyone goes home.....



There are THREE pieces of the "puzzle" - to resolution (see my signature of every post).

1. Acountability - with none exempting self cuz self does.
2. A COMMON sound, knowable, objective rule/canon.
3. A COMMON arbitration that at least largely resolves the debate.

The RCC and LDS have no "pieces" at all. They reject # 1 (making 2 and 3 entirely moot).

Many Protestants have # 1 AND #2. Sadly, they don't have # 3. That means, we still have MUCH work to do - but it puts us 2 steps ahead of the RCC and LDS (and maybe the EO). But yes - a COMMON arbitration exists NOWHERE (and hasn't for some 1200 years) - even a flawed and poor one. All we've had for 1200 years is DENOMINATIONAL, we can arbitrate to resolution things on that level (as the RCC and LDS also do) but not ECUMENICALLY. Lutherans long for this. But we need a sense of humility and community before it is possible. Luther inherited a Christianity SUPERSATURATED with pride, individualism, institutionalism. He helped, he by no means "solved" things - and NO ONE claims he did. We have 2 pieces of resolution, 2 more than the RCC (and from you, it seems than the EO) but while that helps - it doesn't "fix" the mess created by the RC (and as I've gleen from you, the EO).


I doubt that accomplished anything.....
Yup, it's all been said several times before....




.

Well, this is going to go wayyyy off topic, but since you brought it up:

I reject your claim that you have piece 1 and 2 of "the puzzle". The simple fact is because in order for scripture to be authoritative, it must be interpreted, and under sola scriptura (as well as solo) no one is accountable to anything other than scripture (more aptly, your preferred interpretation of scripture), as no one else can bind your conscience regarding doctrine or truth except self. See the vicious circle?

"1.Acountability - with none exempting self cuz self does"

So much as you are accountable to your own interpretation of scripture; but I hardly call this accountability. Self is accountable to self. If your church does not teach your interpretation or understanding of scripture, you can go to another or start your own. Where again is the accountability here? And hey, since we can't agree on a common view of what scripture is, we can always remove some of it, or add some books to it. Why not? Since the canon is not defined, we are accountable only to ourselves and what we declare scripture to be. No one can bind our conscience on such issues.

"2. A COMMON sound, knowable, objective rule/canon."

First of all, there is no scripture common to all of Christianity. We discussed this. Sounds, perhaps, but on what basis? Because you say so? What is the criteria which determines sound scripture from non-sound scripture? Knowable? Well, readable perhaps (for those who can read) but knowledge implies understanding, which is not as easy to obtain without understanding the proper context in which scripture was written. Objective? hardly. Scripture can be twisted and interpreted to support any pet doctrine you can come up with. You are bound only by your imagination. Why is this? It is because it is your interpretation, your individual interpretation, that is authorative, which is accountable to no one. Luther found this out rather quickly after he parted ways with the RCC: "It is there because Dr. Martin Luther deems it to be so..."

"3. A COMMON arbitration that at least largely resolves the debate."

Ok then, this thread is discussing "arbitration" in context of sola and solo scriptura. It still doesn't seem to me that you offered any insight into this process how and how it is conducted under your 'rule'.

I will not address your claims which attack the authority of "denominations" which do not adhere to sola scriptura, as this is beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I was raised in a denomination which was not (and still is not) accountable to much nor could it be held accountable because there was nothing to serve a a means or standard to do so. The Bible was proclaimed to be such a deep and mystical book that only seminary-trained men were capable of reading it and explaining it to the rest of us mere mortals. However, in all of the church services I attended the Bible was regularly ignored in favor of more interesting things (at least interesting to the preacher).

It was after I became a Christian that I read the Bible for the first time in my life. I was quite stunned that it was surprisingly simple and clear to understand and that it contained a lot of stuff my church had rejected and had refused to mention as I was growing up. Things like sin, for instance.

Without the Bible that denomination is sailing steadily along toward the abyss as more and more of its passengers have been bailing out.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well, this is going to go wayyyy off topic, but since you brought it up:

Actually, the comment that arbitration is wayyyyy off topic was MINE. You keep harping on it.

I reject your claim that you have piece 1 and 2 of "the puzzle". The simple fact is because in order for scripture to be authoritative, it must be interpreted

I just cannot AGAIN try to inform you of what Sola Scriptura is. I HONESTLY don't know if you just refuse to read anything anyone posts (making whatever I post moot anyway) or if you just don't understand what any are posting here (I'll take the blame for not being able there). But the rule of Scripture is that Scripture is the rule. YOU are imposing what I suspect is a concept of unmitigated, unaccountable, "lording" POWER - I never mentioned it. And in spite of you being told - WAY too many times to count - that the Rule of Scripture means that Scripture is the rule, not that XYZ is the proper principles of hermeneutics - you keep bringing up what is not a part of the practice. Therefore, there's just nothing ANYONE can post that will help advance anything. It's like a Catholic trying to explain that Catholics don't worship Mary and one responder going on and on and on about why statues aren't made of gold.....

and under sola scriptura (as well as solo) no one is accountable to anything other than scripture

Well, the disputed teaching is, yes.

(more aptly, your preferred interpretation of scripture), as no one else can bind your conscience regarding doctrine or truth except self. See the vicious circle?

No, because the rule of Scripture does not teach that self is the...... anything.

Perhaps you are trying to IMPOSE the RCC/LDS (and maybe EO) insistence that SELF is the sole interpreter, sole authority, sole arbiter - moot since self insists that self is incapable of being wrong. And it's certainly not a teaching of Sola Scriptura. There is no teaching of Sola Scriptura. It's not a teaching, it's a practice.

So much as you are accountable to your own interpretation of scripture; but I hardly call this accountability. Self is accountable to self.

AT MOST, at BEST, that's the RCC position (and it seems, the EO position). If you have read anything presented to you about the Rule of Scripture, you would know it is not a principle of hermeneutics, it's a practice of norming. It does NOT teach that each individual is an infallible interpreter, it doesn't teach anything. The only one known to ME that insists on designating SELF as the sole, authoritrative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture is the RCC (CCC 85, etc). Sola Scriptura doesn't teach that. It doesn't teach anything.

And hey, since we can't agree on a common view of what scripture is, we can always remove some of it, or add some books to it.

1. The consensus that Scripture is the reliable inscripturated word of God is one of the oldest, firmest, most ecumenical points in Christianity. IF you know of any other potential rule - one seen as MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all (say roughly 50,000 denominations) MORE historically embraced (say to 1400 BC) than is Scripture - then present it.

2. Far, far, far worse would be denominational tradition. Even the RCC can't agree on what it is for the RCC - even just ONE denomination, much less 50,000. You and the RC (just two denominations) both say you hold to Apostolic Tradition yet one says this teaches - to the very highest degree of clarity and boldest and certainty - that the Pope is superior and infallible, purgatory, original sin, transubstantiation, assumption of Mary, immaculate conception of Mary - all this in RIGHT THERE IN TRADITION, right from the Apostles - but you don't agree. So, Tradition has no standing outside even ONE denomination as to what it is and what it is not. And since it is a pure phantom (there is no corpus of such), I see Scripture as having more ecumenical embrace and being more knowable.


3. Yes, you are right. Of the 50,000 denominations some insist exist, 4 have a UNIQUE set of Scriptures which only SELF embraces and NO OTHER agrees with: those are the OO, EO, RC and LDS. But except for the LDS, it's moot. I'm MORE THAN GLAD to operate under Sola Scripture with your unique, extremely UNecumenical set of unique books.

there is no scripture common to all of Christianity.

66 books are. To about 50,000 denominations. 4 have a few additional (all pretty moot).

If you want to use the very, very UNecumenical unique "set" of the EO, one NO other agrees with - that's fine.

The RCC does not reject the Rule of Scripture because Luther's translation did not include the UNIQUE RCC books (which weren't yet officially embraced). It reject it because it rejects accountability (Luther's tome DID include those books, btw - before the RCC officially embraced them).

Which denomination's "Tradition" is common among 50,000 others? Do nearly all the other 49,999 denominations share the exact word-for-word content of the EO's Tradition? Do even all aspects of the EO? How is that better that 50,000 denominations embracing the word-for-word content of 66 books (with only 4 having any additional books)?

Knowable? Well, knowledge implies understanding

No. It means knowable. If I posted the black and white words of John 3:16, such is KNOWABLE. Objective. I can't change the letters, you can't change the letters. It's objectively knowable.

It is because it is your interpretation, your individual interpretation, that is authorative, which is accountable to no one.

This SEEMS to be a major issue for you! I can't think of a better reason to embrace accountability rather than working so hard to deny and denounce it.

You really need to take your issue of self designating self alone as the SOLE, authoritative, infallible interpreter to the ONLY ONE ON THE PLANET who does that: the RCC (well, you almost have me convinced I need to add the EO to that). The early LDS once had this stance too but stopped over a century ago.

You really need to make up your mind: CAN error happen or not? CAN an individual teacher (such as the RCC or EO or LDS) be wrong in their views (such as interpretations) or not? If you keep insisting that error CAN happen - and that matters at all to you - then why are you so opposed to accountability and norming? And I'll ask yet again: IF you have something that is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE knowable to all (say 50,000 denominations), MORE historically embraced (say to 1400 BC) MORE objective (in black and white that ANY can acknowleged) than is Scripture - then share it.


... I knew my post to you would be a waste of my time, and yet....
I STILL think it might help, if you considered it. Maybe. I felt it was worth a TRY anyway.






.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And you didn't even address the part of my post that was relevant to the topic at hand! I really don't know what to say, Josiah other than this discussion we're having is entirely non-productive. I've read your posts, your rules, etc. I've read all of them. None of them address what I am addressing in this thread. So you can choose to be post relevant issues to the topic at hand, or not.


BTW, I already and several others already mentioned (several times) that there is at least one other denomination (armenian apostolic) that only accepts 22 books of the new testament, so we don't have 66 in common amonst all of us (you really need to update your copy/paste files).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

BTW, I already and several others already mentioned (several times) that there is at least one other denomination (armenian apostolic) that only accepts 22 books of the new testament, so we don't have 66 in common amonst all of us (you really need to update your copy/paste files).

Okay. I stand corrected. 49,995 denominations accept 66 books. 1 accepts less, 4 accept more. Fine....

How many of the 49,999 other denominations (some claim exist) accept the exact, verbatim, word-for-word, objectively knowable tradition of the EO? Does even all the EO?

IF you have an alternative - something MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable (as in verbatim black and white words any and all can read), MORE ecumenically embraced (even if you want to limit that to 49,995 denominations - more than that), MORE historically embraced (say earlier than 1400 BC) than Scripture - share it. We can discuss it.

And WHATEVER your attack on Scripture RATHER than sharing an alternative rule is suppose to accomplish, it has nothing to do with why Sola Scripture has ever been rejected: it is rejected because accountability is rejected. The RCC and LDS (like you) offer no alternative rule becuase there is NONE it is willing to be subject to - outside of itself (yes, the RCC and LDS are both willing to subject the views of self to the views of self - a perfect circle, entirely moot - thus okay).

If Scripture lacks the necessary inspiration, reliability, and ecumenical/historic embrace to serve as a rule - what is your alternative? What BETTER qualifies? Or is the EO objection the same as the RCC one: all are rejected because self is exempt from the issue of truth since self declares that self can't be wrong?





.

 

[ARBITER01]

this thread isn't about SS vs. Tradition.

Well you made sure that you stuck you opinion in there and denigrated any other method in the process.

If you don't want it to be about that, then don't make comments over it.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

So we are to accept a "secondary" source as authority over the actual primary writings of our apostles?

How is that logical?

It can be shown that apostolic succession is the only legitimate alternative without addressing it directly, that is, by eliminating sola scriptura. That is later though, we still haven't gotten to that point (and i'm not sure we ever will at this rate).

I fear that if I address your comment here it will get sidetracked.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I was raised in a denomination which was not (and still is not) accountable to much nor could it be held accountable because there was nothing to serve a a means or standard to do so. The Bible was proclaimed to be such a deep and mystical book that only seminary-trained men were capable of reading it and explaining it to the rest of us mere mortals. However, in all of the church services I attended the Bible was regularly ignored in favor of more interesting things (at least interesting to the preacher).

It was after I became a Christian that I read the Bible for the first time in my life. I was quite stunned that it was surprisingly simple and clear to understand and that it contained a lot of stuff my church had rejected and had refused to mention as I was growing up. Things like sin, for instance.

Without the Bible that denomination is sailing steadily along toward the abyss as more and more of its passengers have been bailing out.

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[ARBITER01]

It can be shown that apostolic succession is the only legitimate alternative without addressing it directly, that is, by eliminating sola scriptura. That is later though, we still haven't gotten to that point (and i'm not sure we ever will at this rate).

Apostolic succession?

The offices come from Jesus, He chooses who will be what in the body, not a denomination.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It can be shown that apostolic succession is the only legitimate alternative without addressing it directly, that is, by eliminating sola scriptura. That is later though, we still haven't gotten to that point (and i'm not sure we ever will at this rate).

I'd like for you to start a thread to document that



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'd like for you to start a thread to document that: namely:

1. Apostolic Succession is more inspired by God, more inerrant, more reliable, more objectively knowable and more ecumenically embraced (say by 50,000 denominations) , more historical (say to 1400 BC), than is Scripture.

2. That the disputed doctrines among us (which, unfortunately, includes Apostolic Succession) can be held up to the light of Apostolic Succession in a way more objective than to Scripture.

I'm more than curious how you would present that...

And I'd be more than curious to see how you even define Apostolic Succession for this: If it is people being appointed by other people - then I have Apostolic Succession and I'm part of this rule/canon you are presenting. If it's a view taught by the 13 Apostles, then how is that different than Sola Scriptura since the only objective, knowable, ecumenically embraced "place" where that teaching is recorded is in the NT (all you've done is eliminate at least 45 books from the rule of Scripture - leaving us with only the 13 books of Paul, 5 books of John, 2 of Peter and 1 of Matthew - now mandating that we can prove those ARE the penmen of those books and that the Apostles are more reliable than God).

Start a thread proposing Apostolic Succession as the norma normans in norming. I'll see how you address those points, I'm VERY curious how you'd do that!!!!!! Beware: the Catholics will oppose that one, too - unless it is limited to it's OWN clergy who are upholding the teachings of the RCC. All Protestants will reject it too, not because they reject accountability (the RCC's problem) but because we don't regard man as above God..

I would also like to see a thread started on that

 

[file13]

Ah, it appears I have lured the boar out of the bushes!

I sure hope you get the reference and thus the humor, especially when you see that that pig's got flowers in his hair!

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.

Apostolic succession is a traditional doctrine, not an biblical one (you don't cast lots to determine your next bishop, do you?). Therefore, we can't help but bring up tradition because the question involves a doctrine derived from tradition. Sorry brother, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

That being said, apostolic succession is not as you say "the only logical alternative to resolving this dilemma" at all because as I've hinted at, apostolic succession cannot prevent heresy or schism (as history clearly demonstrates) and does not allow for any resolution in the case of the church falling into radical corruption and refusing to be reformed.

Besides, Anglicans and some Lutherans have "apostolic succession." What does this prove? Well, it simply proves that we also have apostolic succession.

Of course, the instant we ask this question we quickly see that there's not even universal agreement as to what constitutes "valid" apostolic succession. For RCC, you can still have valid succession, but be in both heresy and schism, which is why they felt the need to officially invalidate Anglican apostolic succession. It's also why the EO are considered to still have valid sacraments even though they're in schism with Rome and hold beliefs which Rome has historically rejected and condemned. For the EO, one's apostolic succession becomes invalid in the case of either heresy or schism, which means that everyone who is not EO, regardless of the fact that they could trace their episcopal lineage back to the apostles (and even here things get a bit slippery since there's disagreement in the earliest sources regarding lineages), it really dosen't matter because if you're a schismatic or heretic, your succession is invalid.

So the question becomes, who's definition of apostolic succession can "logically" save us from the perils of this horrid dilemma of sola vs solo scriptura where we still have to interpret Scripture!? The next question, is how can it resolve this issue? But of course, this brings us right back to the problem which you want to avoid, but can't, because it brings us to problem of validating tradition, since as we see, there's various views on what apostolic succession means.

But "logically speaking," we don't even need to go there since it's blatantly obvious from history that apostolic succession cannot prevent heresy or schism. Did it prevent the schism with the OO? They have valid succession. Did it prevent the Great Schism? I mean, both have valid succession according to their version of tradition. How about the Great Western Schism? We had not one, not two, but three popes who all had apostolic succession! Who do we believe!? What about us heretical Anglicans or Lutherans who also have apostolic succession? Does it prevent us from not rejoining one of the "One True Church"es?

I know it's not a thread about this, but you're making the claim that such things are absolutely true. So we don't have much choice but to point out that one can't claim that both sola and solo are false without implying (which you go far beyond here) that one needs to treat tradition with more authority.

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.

As I've stated, they are simply terms to differentiate between very real and very obvious epistemological differences. Do you dispute this? If so, please support your argument.

As for condemning solo scriptura, the reason you have not heard a unanimous condemnation is because (and notice how this again validates my claim there are obvious differences) you have evangelicals who do adhere to solo scripture either consciously or unconsciously. If they do so consciously, they obviously agree with it. So what's your point here? That evangelicals are not in 100% agreement here? Is this supposed to be news to anyone? Lucky for us, sola gratia/sola fide saves us from the need to have perfect theology to be saved....

But if you'd like a condemnation, I'm happy to oblige. Solo scriptura is unbiblical because it makes the church unnecessary. NT Scripture is abounding with the need to be a part of Christ's body.

Of course, others have also pointed out as I have earlier that solo scriptura is not really even a tenable position because one simply cannot approach Scripture as a tabula rasa or blank slate each and every time one cracks a Bible. This is also a condemnation in that it suggests that this epistemological view is not possible in reality and that those claiming to hold it, are holding to an unrealistic view of what's really going on when they "do theology."

I would personally also add that those individuals who knowing engage in solo scriptura as individuals are acting as their own popes (except they're much less shy about their ex cathedra statements). For those restoration churches who claim the same thing, I'd simply point out that they've simply created a new tradition and that they're in denial about it.

Does that work for ya?

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?

Yes, of course. The difference between the two is that one interprets Scripture as a church, the other as an individual or as a church who is under the delusion that their epistemology is uninfluenced by other sources like tradition or reason (well, maybe they're right on the last one... ).

Sola scripture does not hand everyone a Bible and urge them to figure it out for themselves. The magisterial reformers were (as the word suggests) reforming a church which they believed was corrupt and which was so corrupt (and or unreformable) that in the end, schism was the only option. Sola scriptura says that you need the church and must be a part of the church to be a Christian.

Of course at this point one's definition of "what is the church" becomes important, but almost all Protestants would agree that a body is a church if it preaches the gospel and administers the sacraments. (We could keep digging here of course and ask "define the gospel" and the sacraments, but my point is for you to understand our POV).

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?

Yes. But Scripture is clear, Christians are a part of Christ's body and must work within His body, the church. The "middle man" as you say it, is the church. Solo scriptura takes the church out of the equation and elects every person pope.

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.

It's not so much I don't want to discuss it, but rather me wondering why you keep bringing the issue up while seemingly refusing to take the time to really understand the Protesant POV? Do you just enjoy a good argument (and hey, we all here obviously do to some degree)? Are you trying to shake evangelical's faith because you've got the EO convert zeal thing going? Maybe you just want to share what you think is great. I don't know. I'm not trying to attack you personally brother, I'm just more curious why you seem to keep bringing the same basic topic (Christian epistemology) up over and over. I mean, the big three Christian sects (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestants) all have different epistemology and we all implicitly know this. So why keep attacking one you don't agree with?

Anyways, this is why I directed you to the excellent free theology course (and especially the ones on Bibliology and Hermeneutics) because it will show you what we actually believe so we can stop trashing strawmen and get into genuine irenic discussion. Although I believe there's a time and place for polemics, I prefer to avoid them in online forums.

As always, peace be with you brother!

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I sure hope you get the reference and thus the humor, especially when you see that that pig's got flowers in his hair!

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

Apostolic succession is a traditional doctrine, not an biblical one (you don't cast lots to determine your next bishop, do you?). Therefore, we can't help but bring up tradition because the question involves a doctrine derived from tradition. Sorry brother, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

That being said, apostolic succession is not as you say "the only logical alternative to resolving this dilemma" at all because as I've hinted at, apostolic succession cannot prevent heresy or schism (as history clearly demonstrates) and does not allow for any resolution in the case of the church falling into radical corruption and refusing to be reformed.

Besides, Anglicans and some Lutherans have "apostolic succession." What does this prove? Well, it simply proves that we also have apostolic succession.

Of course, the instant we ask this question we quickly see that there's not even universal agreement as to what constitutes "valid" apostolic succession. For RCC, you can still have valid succession, but be in both heresy and schism, which is why they felt the need to officially invalidate Anglican apostolic succession. It's also why the EO are considered to still have valid sacraments even though they're in schism with Rome and hold beliefs which Rome has historically rejected and condemned. For the EO, one's apostolic succession becomes invalid in the case of either heresy or schism, which means that everyone who is not EO, regardless of the fact that they could trace their episcopal lineage back to the apostles (and even here things get a bit slippery since there's disagreement in the earliest sources regarding lineages), it really dosen't matter because if you're a schismatic or heretic, your succession is invalid.

So the question becomes, who's definition of apostolic succession can "logically" save us from the perils of this horrid dilemma of sola vs solo scriptura where we still have to interpret Scripture!? The next question, is how can it resolve this issue? But of course, this brings us right back to the problem which you want to avoid, but can't, because it brings us to problem of validating tradition, since as we see, there's various views on what apostolic succession means.

But "logically speaking," we don't even need to go there since it's blatantly obvious from history that apostolic succession cannot prevent heresy or schism. Did it prevent the schism with the OO? They have valid succession. Did it prevent the Great Schism? I mean, both have valid succession according to their version of tradition. How about the Great Western Schism? We had not one, not two, but three popes who all had apostolic succession! Who do we believe!? What about us heretical Anglicans or Lutherans who also have apostolic succession? Does it prevent us from not rejoining one of the "One True Church"es?

I know it's not a thread about this, but you're making the claim that such things are absolutely true. So we don't have much choice but to point out that one can't claim that both sola and solo are false without implying (which you go far beyond here) that one needs to treat tradition with more authority.

Point taken. Let me backtrack a bit here. What I originally set out to do was defend the author's contention that sola and solo were fundamentally the same thing, at least in terms of interpretive authority. I did tack on the issues regarding apostolic succession near the middle somewhere, and used it as a 'label' to point to an alternative to sola/solo. I did not mean to imply that apostolic succession is itself the 'solution' to sola scriptura. 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. Perhaps I used that term because the author did, and that was a oversimplification on my part (as EO, anyways).

Your point is entirely valid. Apostolic succession is not the end-all, and does not guarantee itself as a prevention from heresy/schism, or even that the faith will be 'faithfully' preserved (I have admitted this before, and I doubt any EO will disagree with me, but if so, please speak up!). 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. I do not think preserving authentic apostolic doctrine is as simple as maintaining an apostolic succession of bishops. In fact, the issue I believe is quite complex, and I feel deserves a thread of it's own to fully flesh out. Perhaps after this thread, we can start that one. What I really want to attempt to show in this thread is that sola and solo are fundamentally the same. Will you allow that to be the topic of this discussion, and perhaps we can discuss the alternative to SS on another thread? 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).

As I've stated, they are simply terms to differentiate between very real and very obvious epistemological differences. Do you dispute this? If so, please support your argument.

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.

Does that work for ya?

Ya, thanks. I will proceed with the assumption that they are indeed not the same thing, and that solo is 'unbiblical'. (If someone wants to argue that it is biblical, there is probably some room for that in this thread as well).

Yes, of course. The difference between the two is that one interprets Scripture as a church, the other as an individual or as a church who is under the delusion that their epistemology is uninfluenced by other sources like tradition or reason (well, maybe they're right on the last one... ).
....
Sola scriptura says that you need the church and must be a part of the church to be a Christian.

Ah, finally to the meat of the discussion. I need to ask you a question first though, so I can clarify your position. 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."

Yes. But Scripture is clear, Christians are a part of Christ's body and must work within His body, the church. The "middle man" as you say it, is the church. Solo scriptura takes the church out of the equation and elects every person pope.

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.

It's not so much I don't want to discuss it, but rather me wondering why you keep bringing the issue up while seemingly refusing to take the time to really understand the Protesant POV?

I think this is an interesting topic which will be fun to discuss. I read the article, found it to be persuasive, and now I want to see the defense of SS in light of it. It seems to me that most of the other threads about SS were w.r.t. definitions and what SS is, now I want to talk about actual application of this 'rule'. Sorry if you feel i've mischaracterized protestantism. Please point out my 'mischaracterizations' as you feel. 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. Of course, I do believe that some of the more liberal branches (i.e. episcopalian) tend to value social norms/agendas over the rule of scripture or the rule of faith, perhaps even directly contradicting the latter 2 at times, but I digress...

 

[sunlover1]

Yes. But Scripture is clear, Christians are a part of Christ's body and must work within His body, the church. The "middle man" as you say it, is the church. Solo scriptura takes the church out of the equation and elects every person pope.

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!

 

[ARBITER01]

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!

It becomes funny at points, for instance,.

1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

That's the requirement taught by our apostle for being considered a part of the body of Christ, but watch how many institutionalized Christians throw up something else considered tradition to try and defeat this clear teaching from Paul.