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

[nestoj]

I'm familiar with that slogan but I don't think it's true. The Scriptures are revelation, not custom or folklore. To the extent that the Church enters in here, it's not as though some church organization commissioned someone to write up the various legends of the past and then proclaimed them the holy book of our religion. No, the church merely recognized the revelation for what it is. So Tradition has nothing to do with it, really.

Again, not the same and unequal standards applied to Scripture and rest of tradition. If the Scripture was revealed by God to the men, why not the rest? Fundamentally, there's no reason.

As said above, it's not a tradition, so this isn't a problem at all!

If it wasn't written by Christ himself, but by some men inspired by God to write it, and leter compiled by some men inspired to compile it - then it's in no fundamental way different from the rest of the devinely inspired tradition.

I'm surprised that you'd say that. Perhaps you could elaborate on your acceptance of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility.

We had a rather big disagreement about it and couldn't reach an universal agreement. Rest is history.

As I've explained, there is nearly universal agreement. Meanwhile, you want include traditions on which there is no uniformity at all. Please address that.

Just those which, at least at one time, had, equally nearly, universal support.

As we said before, nothing is provable 100%, but we DO HAVE nearly universal agreemet on this. What else can our religion be based on?

History, logic and, yes, always, universal agreement on tradition of the church.

 

[nestoj]

I'm trying hard to keep up with this discussion and keep everything in order. Earlier, you wrote:



So which is it--you accept that Scripture is (the) revealed word of God...OR...it's what men say God said?

It's not either or, it's both. We, it seams like it, have a core disagreement in the understanding of the way God operates. Scripture was written by men in the church. Divinely inspired men, but by men nontheless. It was compiled by men in the church. Divinely inspired men, but by men nontheless. I kinda thought all accept this as fact. Tradition is set by men in the church. Divinely inspired men, but by men nontheless. In both cases it's what divinely inspired men say God said. Hence - scripture is tradition.

 

[sunlover1]

It's one of the ways, for sure.

And He dwells in the midst (and in) us, to the extent that we will have Him

And it's kind of you to draw this together; your tradition received Him and the Scriptures, so you keep this

We (EO, for example) received more than this from God, so we keep this

We all have the responsibility to keep what we receive, whether or not another approves of that. And often, what we (EO,OO, etc.) have received from God in Christ through the Holy Spirit is not approved by others on GT (Christians in confessions/traditions that did not receive so much) -- and they make it pretty clear they don't "approve".

But, that's okay -- we seek not the approval of men (who disapprove of what we received), but in and for the love of God, participation in Him.

Well, we all need to speak the same thing.

That's the thing - in both cases it's what men say God said.

Which is why we need God IN us, the hope of glory.
Plus, we all (Christians everywhere) agree that Scripture
is more than "what men say God said".

I believe we could say that. We could confirm God hiding His truth from evildoers, but not from all of the Christians

I agree, why would our Father desire to "hide" His truth from us, His children?
Or does He hide some FOR us.

The Holy Ghost, yes. But Scripture is not the only way Holy Ghost interacts with people. There's a multitude of ways. I believe a conscience to be one of them.

I agree, He speaks to me through my conscience too.


(We are communicating well in this language )

 

[nestoj]

I in no way suggest that you place the Bible on a book shelf and leave it there.
That is not what sola scriptura would be all about.

What was it then we disagreed on?

 

[Thekla]

Well, we all need to speak the same thing.

I slightly disagree; we need to hold and speak what God gives.

 

[SolomonVII]

What was it then we disagreed on?

Who in the world thinks that putting the Bible on a shelf would be sufficient in the first place?

I made the mistake of thinking that you might actually be trying to say something relevant to a discussion of sola scriptura.

 

[sunlover1]

I slightly disagree; we need to hold and speak what God gives.

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you;
but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

 

[nestoj]

Well, we all need to speak the same thing.


Which is why we need God IN us, the hope of glory.
Plus, we all (Christians everywhere) agree that Scripture
is more than "what men say God said".

I agree - partly. We agree that scripture is more than "what men say God said". But...here come the problems. We don't always understand what God said in a same way. That's the first logical problem with Sola Scriptura. Secondly, we place our faith in the devine inspiration of men regarding the validity of, at least the canon of, the Scripture yet reject (some of us do ) the possibility of divine inspiration of the same men regarding the rest of tradition.

I agree, why would our Father desire to "hide" His truth from us, His children?
Or does He hide some FOR us.

I don't know. Hiding is one thing. Letting ALL of us to be in error is something quite different.

I agree, He speaks to me through my conscience too.

Finally!

(We are communicating well in this language )

Хаха...сналазимо се ми добро и на овом језику (ја се бар сналазим ). Дакле, где смо оно стали... шибице и Света Тројица...

 

[nestoj]

Who in the world thinks that putting the Bible on a shelf would be sufficient in the first place?

I made the mistake of thinking that you might actually be trying to say something relevant to a discussion of sola scriptura.

Think nothing of it; it happens a lot to people around me. There, I'm glad we settled that.

 

[Albion]

It's not either or, it's both.

Hmm. Scripture is the revealed word of God and it's also what men say about God. You'll have to excuse me, but those would seem to be mutually exclusive positions.

Scripture was written by men in the church. Divinely inspired men, but by men nontheless. It was compiled by men in the church. Divinely inspired men, but by men nontheless. I kinda thought all accept this as fact.

Of course we all realize that some human had to put pen to paper. The issue is whether what they wrote was inspired by God or just their own musings. If it is the former, there's good reason for considering it to be authoritative. If it is the latter, it's well, just opinion.

Tradition is set by men in the church. Divinely inspired men, but by men nontheless.

Who says so? How do you know that? What makes it so? And what exactly is this "tradition," by which I mean, "How do I recognize it? Where do I get it?"

 

[Albion]

I agree - partly. We agree that scripture is more than "what men say God said". But...here come the problems. We don't always understand what God said in a same way. That's the first logical problem with Sola Scriptura.

If so, it's even MORE of a problem with Tradition, but you're more than willing to believe some version of whatever someone calls "tradition," while at the same time you're skeptical of the Bible which every church accepts as divinely inspired. To me this makes no sense. Even if the Bible is not what I believe it to be, what on Earth makes a lot of traditions MORE trustworthy?

 

[Thekla]

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you;
but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

And if we do hold what is given by us from God, that will happen.

After all that mindset of holding what God gives is how God acted to preserve the NT, right ?

 

[Rick Otto]

The temptation is to let an outer conformity be the enemy of an inner unity.

P.S. I'm on an ice cream fast,... pray for me.

 

[SolomonVII]

The temptation is to let an outer conformity be the enemy of an inner unity.

P.S. I'm on an ice cream fast,... pray for me.

By ice cream fast, do you mean you are fasting from eating ice cream, or fasting by eating only ice cream?

either way, you are in need of prayers.

 

[nestoj]

If so, it's even MORE of a problem with Tradition, but you're more than willing to believe some version of whatever someone calls "tradition," while at the same time you're skeptical of the Bible which every church accepts as divinely inspired. To me this makes no sense. Even if the Bible is not what I believe it to be, what on Earth makes a lot of traditions MORE trustworthy?

But of course it's the same problem with tradition, that's exactly the core of the discussion - scripture and tradition face the same challenge because they come from the same root. And, BTW, you misunderstood my position - I'm in no way skeptical of the Bible. I just find it illogical for those who are skeptical about the tradition not to be, for reasons already mentioned, in the same way skeptical about the Bible.

 

[Albion]

But of course it's the same problem with tradition, that's exactly the core of the discussion - scripture and tradition face the same challenge because they come from the same root.

Let's not throw in additional considerations unilaterally. Scripture and Tradition both face the same problem, you say? I'm not sure of that. What I said is that if yiou can't accept the B,ible it is ridiculous to think you could be guided by traditions. That's like saying a map is not perfect so we should instead use a magic 8 ball. The one may not be foofproof in the hands of men, but the other one isn't anywhere near as good.

Yet you are unsure about the more reliable one and enthusiastic about the lesser one. That's what I don't get.

And, BTW, you misunderstood my position - I'm in no way skeptical of the Bible.

You described it as "what men say God said." That doesn't sound like trust to me. Did you want to amend that statement?

I just find it illogical for those who are skeptical about the tradition not to be, for reasons already mentioned, in the same way skeptical about the Bible.

Well, I looked at that point, but tradition is so much less reliable than the Bible that I can't imagine choosing it over the Scriptures or of adding Tradition and considering it to be of equal worth.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

The temptation is to let an outer conformity be the enemy of an inner unity.

P.S. I'm on an ice cream fast,... pray for me.
​

By ice cream fast, do you mean you are fasting from eating ice cream, or fasting by eating only ice cream?

either way, you are in need of prayers.

We have been praying for him for years and so far, it has been in vain

Luk 18:11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector.
12 'I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.'

.

 

[nestoj]

Hmm. Scripture is the revealed word of God and it's also what men say about God. You'll have to excuse me, but those would seem to be mutually exclusive positions.

Yes, it's both of those things. That's how I see it. And they are not mutually exclusive - men did the writing, God respects their free will and hasn't turned them into some mindless automatons for the purpose of writing, yet God inspired them to write it down. The same goes (maybe even more) for the compiling of the canon. If I'm to be honest to myself, I couldn't exclude either of those two.

Of course we all realize that some human had to put pen to paper. The issue is whether what they wrote was inspired by God or just their own musings. If it is the former, there's good reason for considering it to be authoritative. If it is the latter, it's well, just opinion.

That's the thing - if some human was inspired by God in writing scripture, then it's equally probable that some other human was inspired by God in forming tradition. Not to mention that my position doesn't try to limit the way God reveal himself by saying "if it's not based or explainable by scripture - I reject its validity".

Who says so? How do you know that? What makes it so? And what exactly is this "tradition," by which I mean, "How do I recognize it? Where do I get it?"

Scripture is "tradition". Where it came, the rest of the tradition came also. that's how one recognizes it. This is a place I have to be biased if I want to answer the question "where" - in my church. Maybe even somewhere else...but I can't say that with certainty.

 

[Albion]

Yes, it's both of those things. That's how I see it. And they are not mutually exclusive - men did the writing, God respects their free will and hasn't turned them into some mindless automatons for the purpose of writing, yet God inspired them to write it down. The same goes (maybe even more) for the compiling of the canon. If I'm to be honest to myself, I couldn't exclude either of those two.

I hate to hang onto this like a bulldog, but to say 'it's what men say about God' is not the same as saying 'men wrote down what God inspired them to write'. The Bible says these men wrote as they were inspired to write by God. Most of us look at it that way. Would you concur? If so, it means that what's there is not just human speculating and theorizing about divine things.

That's the thing - if some human was inspired by God in writing scripture, then it's equally probable that some other human was inspired by God in forming tradition.

No, it's not. Not unless you think that the morning newspaper and street signs are equally likely to have been inspired by God. The Bible is supposed to be revelation. It calls itself revelation. There is nothing in custom and folklore, i.e. traditions, that partakes of that quality. Other men just come along later and pronounce it to be special.

Scripture is "tradition".

You keep saying that. Why?

Where it came, the rest of the tradition came also. that's how one recognizes it. This is a place I have to be biased if I want to answer the question "where" - in my church. Maybe even somewhere else...but I can't say that with certainty.

The fact is that no one knows for sure. Your church has selected certain opinions and legends from early history and called them "Holy Tradition" while rejecting others. The Roman Church has chosen different one from out of the body of oral history, and called them "Sacred Tradition." And the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrians, the Old Catholics, and all the other Catholic churches each have their own set. How could this kaleidoscope of opinions possibly be more trustworthy than the word of God???????

 

[Thekla]

The fact is that no one knows for sure. Your church has selected certain opinions and legends from early history and called them "Holy Tradition" while rejecting others. The Roman Church has chosen different one from out of the body of oral history, and called them "Sacred Tradition." And the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrians, the Old Catholics, and all the other Catholic churches each have their own set. How could this kaleidoscope of opinions possibly be more trustworthy than the word of God???????

Then identify the 'differences'.

(Your calling Holy Tradition "legends" gives information about your view ...)