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

[Rick Otto]

Sola Scriptura is a poorly defined doctrine/praxis/ideology/methodology/plumbline practiced by protestant denominations.

Solo Scriptura is an even more poorly defined doctrine/praxis/ideology/methodology/plumbline practiced by individuals who have no denominational affiliations.

Thanks for the detailed explanation of what they are without any Anti-Protestant smack talk, tado. You're a real gentleman that way, bro.

 

[tadoflamb]

Sola Scriptura in fact has been thoroughly defined repeatedly on these forums.
I am surprised that anyone posting here for over a half a decade is still not aware of that.

Ss'er's on here can't decide whether it's a doctrine or a praxis/ideology/methodology/plumbline.

 

[SolomonVII]

Ss'er's on here can't decide whether it's a doctrine or a praxis/ideology/methodology/plumbline.

So you are well aware then of how well that Sola Scriptura has been defined here on CF.

 

[sunlover1]

Ss'er's on here can't decide whether it's a doctrine or a praxis/ideology/methodology/plumbline.

Probably not.
Similar to praying to Mary.
Some RC's call it worship, some call it reverence.
Regardless of what it's 'called' it's what you 'do'.

Regardless of what SS is called, it's what I "do".

So you are well aware then of how well that Sola Scriptura has been defined here on CF.

Sola Scriptura are fighting words around here.
It's been that way as long as I've been here.

 

[nestoj]

I found this on some old thread from CaliforniaJosiah:

"The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is called in epistemology, as we examine and evaluate the positions (especially doctrines) among us.


Here is the official, historic definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (ditto, 3)."


Is this a correct definition of sola scriptura? If it is, how does someone establish a single norm, since there could be (and are) many interpretations of what the scripture is actualy saying?

 

[SolomonVII]

I found this on some old thread from CaliforniaJosiah:

"The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is called in epistemology, as we examine and evaluate the positions (especially doctrines) among us.


Here is the official, historic definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (ditto, 3)."


Is this a correct definition of sola scriptura? If it is, how does someone establish a single norm, since there could be (and are) many interpretations of what the scripture is actualy saying?

The bible on the other hand is hard reference. It says what it says, and that is firm.

The norm means that any interpretation is to be judge according to Scripture, not according to anyone's interpetation of it. It does not lend itself well to dogmatic decrees. It does however lend itself well to a continuing and passionate search of Scripture in order to glean out the fullest interpretation that there can be.
What it also does is place limits on what has been agreed to be sacred, and what has not been agreed to as sacred.

 

[Albion]

I found this on some old thread from CaliforniaJosiah:

"The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is called in epistemology, as we examine and evaluate the positions (especially doctrines) among us.


Here is the official, historic definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (ditto, 3)."

It's answered right there for you and you quoted it--

The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule.

 

[nestoj]

It's answered right there for you and you quoted it--

The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule.

Am I correct then if I asume that I have to read it and interpret it in order to measure doctrine against it in cases when doctrine claims scriptural basis? But that's the least of my problems with Sola Scriptura. I assume that Sola Scriptura rejects doctrines that can't claim direct basis in scripture (correct me if I'm wrong). These cases, when doctrine can't claim direct scriptural basis and is in the same time not obviously contrary the scripture, are the most problematic. Sola Scriptura would discard such doctrines as unscriptural and say "Its existence can't be proven so we reject it"...and in doing so would commit itself to exactly the same logic those who reject existence of God most oftenly use - "Its existence can't be proven by means we accept so we reject it". In both cases the decision to reject is based on a logical fallacy know as "Absence of evidence". It's amplified by narrowing the field of valid proof to the contrary, meaning - accepting only scripture, or accepting only evidence in confinements of scientific method. The problem wouldn't exist if proponents of Sola Scriptura would simply say - we don't know, maybe it's valid maybe not, but it doesn't fit into what we accept as proveable. Not to mention that, in my opinion, if all implications are to be observed, it potentialy limits God.

 

[nestoj]

The bible on the other hand is hard reference. It says what it says, and that is firm.

The norm means that any interpretation is to be judge according to Scripture, not according to anyone's interpetation of it. It does not lend itself well to dogmatic decrees. It does however lend itself well to a continuing and passionate search of Scripture in order to glean out the fullest interpretation that there can be.
What it also does is place limits on what has been agreed to be sacred, and what has not been agreed to as sacred.

That exactly is the problem I have with Sola Scriptura. The bible says nothing, it's a book. We read it and interpret what it says.

 

[Albion]

Am I correct then if I asume that I have to read it and interpret it in order to measure doctrine against it in cases when doctrine claims scriptural basis? But that's the least of my problems with Sola Scriptura. I assume that Sola Scriptura rejects doctrines that can't claim direct basis in scriptura (correct me if I'm wrong). These cases, when doctrine can't claim direct scriptural basis and is in the same time not obviously contrary the scripture, are the most problematic. Sola Scriptura would discard such doctrines as unscriptural and say "Its existence can't be proven so we reject it"...and in doing so would commit itself to exactly the same logic those who reject existence of God most oftenly use - "Its existence can't be proven by means we accept so we reject it". In both cases the decision to reject is based on a logical fallacy know as "Absence of evidence". It's amplified by narrowing the field of valid proof to the contrary, meaning - accepting only scripture, or accepting only evidence in confinements of scientific method. The problem wouldn't exist if proponents of Sola Scriptura would simply say - we don't know, maybe it's valid maybe not, but it doesn't fit into what we accept as proveable. Not to mention that, in my opinion, if all implications are to be observed, it potentialy limits God.

Here's the crux of the matter. You want to have a firm answer about how to use and understand Scripture. There is a time and a place for those questions, but not here and now. We are still discussing where to turn in order to get the facts (to put it colloquially). That's what the Sola Scriptura debate is about.

Where to turn is...Scripture, because that is the revealed word of God and, therefore, reliable as an authority. It has, in fact, no equal because of its origin. If you are comfortable with what your source for truth is, THEN you can move to all the questions that naturally might be asked about how to understand it. But again, it is to put the cart before the horse to worry over how to interpret Scripture if you don't first believe that it contains the truth you are seeking.

 

[nestoj]

Here's the crux of the matter. You want to have a firm answer about how to use and understand Scripture. There is a place of those questions, but not here and now. We are still discussing where to turn in order to get the facts (to put it colloquially). Where to turn is Scripture because that is the revealed word of God and, therefore, reliable as an authority. It has, in fact, no equal. If you are comfortable with what your source for truth is, THEN you can move to all the questions that naturally might be asked about how to understand it. But again, it is pointless to worry over how to interpret Scripture if you don't first beleive that it contains the truth you are seeking.

Oh, but I accept that Scripture is revealed word of God, just not that it's all of it. On the other hand, that's another problem with Sola Scriptura - Scripture nowhere said what is Scripture and what is not, and we both know there was a lot of candidates prior to 397 AD. Actually, we don't all agree completely even today. It could, and does, lead someone to ask "Is it even complete today?". But, nevermind that, someone had to canonize the Scripture we have today. What I'm contending to prove is that we, all of us, place at least equal belief in God protecting the reliability of those who canonized the Scripture as we do in God protecting reliability of Scripture. If we think about it, those two things are equivalent.

 

[Albion]

Oh, but I accept that Scripture is revealed word of God, just not that it's all of it.

Well then, you do not have a clear direction based on Scripture. That means, I guess, that you will believe whatever your church tells you to believe, having no identifiable standard.

On the other hand, that's another problem with Sola Scriptura - Scripture nowhere said what is Scripture and what is not, and we both know there was a lot of candidates prior to 397 AD.

That problem was solved, as you know.

Actually, we don't all agree completely even today. It could, and does, lead someone to ask "Is it even complete today?".

Well of course there comes a point at which we have to admit that we all take some things as true which cannot be proven absolutely. You don't know for a fact that there is an unbroken line of bishops leading up to yours and we don't know absolutely that all the miracles that we think happened weren't staged in some way. We go by probabilities in everything we encounter in life. But in reality, there is very little difference between the churches when it comes to the Bible books. Only the Apocrypha is a serious point of debate, and yet, there is no doctrine that is based upon any of those books.

But, nevermind that, someone had to canonize the Scripture we have today.

Agreed.

What I'm contending to prove is that we, all of us, place at least equal belief in God protecting the reliability of those who canonized the Scripture as we do in God protecting reliability of Scripture. If we think about it, those two things are equivalent.

Honestly, I can't imagine any reason to think that way. The Bible is timeless. Men are sinners. And before you say that Tradition is the way to go, remember that there is no agreement on Tradition-defined doctrine. Every doctrine that is said to be believed because of Tradition is a doctrine that church leaders plucked out from among the mass of opinion and legend and said "We like this one, but not those others." And every church/communion that says it follows Tradition has its own set of beliefs and its own version of Tradition. While saying what I did about the Apocrypha, the Bible is common to all of the churches. In addition, every one of them says that the Bible is from God, just as you did. However, there is no such consensus on the traditions each one holds to.

 

[Thekla]

Actually, doctrine is considered what is received - so, for example, prior to the full complement of the NT being in general circulation (and also an agreed acceptance/canon) there is what underlies Scripture (which also directs in God how Scripture is understood/interpreted).

If one desires, one can indeed see the consistency of Tradition also -- look, for example at the Assyrian (Church of the East), Coptic and Eastern Orthodox, RC ... look at what we, though often out of full communion for centuries, do share.

 

[Albion]

If one desires, one can indeed see the consistency of Tradition also -- look, for example at the Assyrian (Church of the East), Coptic and Eastern Orthodox, RC ... look at what we, though often out of full communion for centuries, do share.

I've looked (although not as an expert) at every communion's idea of Tradition. No two churches believe the same from out of the the EO, OO, Assyrian, RCC, and OC. All say that Scripture is not sufficient and we need Tradition...but each has its own version of that Tradition.

 

[Thekla]

I've looked (although not as an expert) at every communion's idea of Tradition. No two churches believe the same from out of the the EO, OO, Assyrian, RCC, and OC. All say that Scripture is not sufficient and we need Tradition...but each has its own version of that Tradition.

Then you might look again; there is much in common.

Of those things that are not in common - well, there are mutual understandings reached to the effect that the same concept was held, but language presented problems (a rough sum). So look for what is in common ...

Certainly more than (these days) branches of the same denomination.

 

[nestoj]

Well then, you do not have a clear direction based on Scripture. That means, I guess, that you will believe whatever your church tells you to believe, having no identifiable standard.

No, not really. I'm an integral part of that church, and involved in forming a consensus, which, among other things, we're basing on Scripture. We have influence. Maybe we don't all have equal influence, I could agree with that, but none of us is just a passive observer. Anyway, we're not all born with equal talents and abilities.

That problem was solved, as you know.

Yes.

Well of course there comes a point at which we have to admit that we all take some things as true which cannot be proven absolutely. You don't know for a fact that there is an unbroken line of bishops leading up to yours and we don't know absolutely that all the miracles that we think happened weren't staged in some way. We go by probabilities in everything we encounter in life.

Agreed, partly. We could try to prove something absolutely. That might be a hopeless attempt, but we should try it anyway. I'd settle with a consensus, it doesn't have to be a mathematical proof that something is absolutely true.

But in reality, there is very little difference between the churches when it comes to the Bible books. Only the Apocrypha is a serious point of debate, and yet, there is no doctrine that is based upon any of those books.

Nevertheless, the measuring stick is not standardized. Some might apply, implicitly, via synthesis, conclusions and understanding from the Apocrypha on doctrine. It shifts the point of view.

Agreed.

Great.

Honestly, I can't imagine any reason to think that way. The Bible is timeless. Men are sinners. And before you say that Tradition is the waty to go, remember that there is no such thing as Tradition-defined doctrine. Every doctrine that is said to be believed because of Tradition is a doctrine that church leaders plucked out from among the mass of opinion and legend and said "We like this one, but not those others." And every church/communion that says it follows Tradition has its own set of beliefs and its own version of Tradition. With an acknowledgment of the issue concerning the Apocrypha, the Bible is common to all of them. In addition, every one of the says that the Bible is from God; there is no such consensus on the traditions each one holds to.

There's a problem with that line of thought - what's to say they didn't do the same thing with the canon of Scripture. If we are to apply some form of critique in one case, and say - that's what I object, for the sake of integrity, we should apply it to all of the subject.

 

[nestoj]

It's midnight here brothers and sisters. We'll continue this talk some other time.

 

[Rick Otto]

I like how the "Golden Rule" is one of the two greatest commandments, which are as far as I know, undisputed (openly, consciously).

 

[Rick Otto]

In addition, every one of them says that the Bible is from God, just as you did. However, there is no such consensus on the traditions each one holds to.

From a "disinterested" viewpoint, the body of professing Christianity is a mosaic. That is only more or less a problem depending on at least a few factors.
I'm thinking that along with baptism, we should tattoo the two greatest commandments on forearms or something.

 

[Albion]

No, not really. I'm an integral part of that church, and involved in forming a consensus, which, among other things, we're basing on Scripture. We have influence. Maybe we don't all have equal influence, I could agree with that, but none of us is just a passive observer. Anyway, we're not all born with equal talents and abilities.

Yes, but that isn't the point. What I meant was that if you were to base your beliefs on the Bible, you would have a firm guide. We all own one. We agree on what's in it. We all agree on where it comes from. But if you mix "Tradition" in with it, how much? Which traditions? Who decides? What's divinely-inspired Tradition and what's just custom? Etc.

Agreed, partly. We could try to prove something absolutely. That might be a hopeless attempt, but we should try it anyway. I'd settle with a consensus, it doesn't have to be a mathematical proof that something is absolutely true.

Well, that's what I was getting at. We can't prove that either of us isn't a figment of someone's imagination either, I would suppose. However, we act on that which is most likely right.

Nevertheless, the measuring stick is not standardized. Some might apply, implicitly, via synthesis, conclusions and understanding from the Apocrypha on doctrine. It shifts the point of view.

Actually it doesn't. Or at most, it shifts it only on a few non-essentials. With the Bible, all of Christianity is pretty much in agreement on what we are dealing with.

There's a problem with that line of thought - what's to say they didn't do the same thing with the canon of Scripture. If we are to apply some form of critique in one case, and say - that's what I object, for the sake of integrity, we should apply it to all of the subject.

But the whole Christian world is in agreement, for right or for wrong (and we already discussed that), save only for the Apocrypha which is mainly a series of morality tales, not books on which we base doctrine. But when we turn to Tradition, there's almost nothing you can count on. Every church has a different definition and makes its picks from out of a mass of historic opinion, legend, folklore, custom, and so on. Using Tradition is like sorting through a haystack looking for a few good strands and then every church that wants to be involved in this search deciding how to compare all the possibilities. There is no church council to decide which Traditions, no worldwide consensus, no uniformity of belief between the churches as to which strands are real and which are just fallible human opinion.