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

[nestoj]

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.

And the same goes other way around - if you don't accept the traditions, it's ridiculous to accept the Bible. Map and magic ball are bad example. More like some men wrote multiple maps. Their students also wrote some maps. Then their students took those maps and said - these are ok, but those aren't. Later they added some more maps. Time passed, and suddenly we look at all the maps and say "These are the maps we accept, but not the rest". My question is - if they came from the same school of map-writing, what made you think that the Councilor of writing maps was there to counsel only on some of the maps?

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

Nope, you're wrong. I'm equally enthusiastic about the both. They both come from the same source. What I don't get is - being that both indisputably come from men (for the sake of discussion, let's say that only Biblical canon and some of the extra-biblical tradition came from the same men), what makes you think that those same men were divinely inspired in one case, but not in the other?

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

Go back a few pages and you will see that's the phrase taken from sunlover. You're now participating in two separate discussions with me. One which we started originally, and the one that specific wording came from, originally started with sunlover.

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.

The source is the same. I don’t think God stopped inspiring the mankind after writing and compiling the Bible.

 

[SolomonVII]

​

"... 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."


People have been critical of the Bible, due to that. That is why so many have come to reject the books from the intra testament period.

I know I certainly am critical of the Bible, skeptical of claims made about it, and valdations made for certain tenets of a faith through use and misuse of passages.

For example, Onanaism as a Catholic use of the Bible to censure masturbation, is something that is completely outside of the meaning of the text itself.

In the end though, the process of choosing which books were deemed to be apostolic and inspired was open. The logic was discernible, as to why for example, the Gospel of John would be accepted, or why the Protenvegalium of James ought to be rejected.

For an apostolic church, for example, it was necessary that the books selected be of apostolic origin, and not pseudoapostolic. Their usage had to be widespread and accepted from the Christian communities as a whole. And the theology had to be sophisticated and consistent, and not just a compilation or a list of sayings of Jesus.
Very likely, there were mistakes made. Many now, for example, no longer believe that Hebrews was from Paul's hands. Few would be willing to throw the book out on that account though, because of the sophistication and brilliance of the theology, and because it is so consistent with the logic of the Christian message as a wholethat its content is at least apostolic, even if its source is unknown.

There was never a complete agreement on the books finally included, and some books like Revelation were slow to be accepted at all.

The canon itself was never completely closed, in the West until Trent, and in the East at a late date as well. There was nothing particularly infallible about the process. It was a work of faith to be sure, but a work subject to reason and compromise and ongoing discussion nevertheless.

In the end, trust in the Bible as the Wisdom of Ages is based on the fruits where the Bible has demonstrated exactly that. Various interpretations from Sacred Tradition have come and gone, but the words of the Bible remain nevertheless as fit to inspire, direct and guide us, the same as they have for thousands of years now.
Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, as far as I have been able to discern, is a sort of my way of the highway sort of attitude.
"Don't do the bread the right way?!!".."Well then begone with ya?"
"Don't agree with the folklore around Mary as de fide?!!" ..."well let that be an anathemas too. Begone with ya!!!"

 

[nestoj]

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.

Explained in previous comment where the particular wording came from.

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.

Tradition is also, by its definition, a revelation.

You keep saying that. Why?

Because it's true. The root of both these revelations is the same.

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???????

Partly true - many of those traditions are the same despite the separation. But those are the churches inheriting the men who said what scripture is, and what isn't. I can't tell you which one to choose, but I could tell you which one I did and why.

 

[nestoj]

Off to bed folks, we'll continue as opportunity arises.

 

[Knee V]

Off to bed folks, we'll continue as opportunity arises.

Wow, the sun sets early in Serbia!

 

[Albion]

Explained in previous comment where the particular wording came from.

Tradition is also, by its definition, a revelation.

No, it is deemed to be revelation by a few churches. That's quite a difference.

Because it's true. The root of both these revelations is the same.

I can see that you are weary of the discussion, so OK. Believe whatever your church tells you to believe. But if you are interested in Sola Scriptura, remember that it is the term for that which is our highest guide, not a description of how it is to be understood or interpreted. Before we move to ferreting out the right interpretation of Scripture--or Tradition, for that matter--we have to know what it is that we should be interpreting! I'd say that God's word is above all human opinion, even if some humans have decreed that some human opinion is the equal of God's opinion.

 

[sunlover1]

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.

This is an interesting point.
We should consider it further.

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

Your denomination is error free?

Finally!

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

Ви не говорите веома добро!

Да, молим вас погледајте 1. Коринћанима 8:6, Амин!

 

[sunlover1]

Then identify the 'differences'.

Where is the list of "Holy Tradition" for your church?

Off to bed folks, we'll continue as opportunity arises.

A blessed day to you and to all who celebrate the Risen King!

 

[BlackSepulcher]

Solo Scriptura: Scripture is the only authority
Sola Scriptura: Scripture is the final authority

When it really comes down to it, Solo is just a more radical version of Sola. Proper Protestans are Sola. I don't know about others, however. They often resemble what is commonly called 'scripture monkeys, and make ample use of proof-texting.

 

[Thekla]

Where is the list of "Holy Tradition" for your church?

We've discussed this before; it's not a "list".

It's the same sense with what are called "Sacraments" (mysterion). There are at least seven (not 'there are seven').

Holy Tradition includes, for example, mindset. How does one describe mindset with a list ? How does one fully describe a person ? It certainly cannot be done; a description will never be the same as the person it describes.

So, there are some things that are listable (like Councils), but the lists to the extent that they can be made will still fall short.

This is why it is so often said, "Come and see."

I wouldn't imagine that you could describe the Church you attend as a list, either.

A blessed day to you and to all who celebrate the Risen King!

Likewise

 

[sunlover1]

Solo Scriptura: Scripture is the only authority
Sola Scriptura: Scripture is the final authority

When it really comes down to it, Solo is just a more radical version of Sola.

Sola Scripturists use Scripture to measure doctrine against.
It's just that simple.

Proper Protestans are Sola.

They are?
So protestants who don't use SS are not proper?
How does all that work?

I don't know about others, however.

Which others?

They often resemble what is commonly called 'scripture monkeys,

Where are they commonly called "Scripture monkeys"?
In another universe?
Google search for scripture monkey

and make ample use of proof-texting

Like this?:
Every Scripture passage is inspired by God.
All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting
people, and training them for a life that has God's approval.

I'm thinking maybe so

 

[SolomonVII]

......


Where are they commonly called "Scripture monkeys"?
In another universe?
Google search for scripture monkey

A phrase that is supposedly common doesn't generate a lot of hits on google, does it?

I don't know why people actually studying the Bible as if it actually meant something and was worthwhile to do so, would generate so much scorn from other Christians.
Whassup with that?

 

[sunlover1]

A phrase that is supposedly common doesn't generate a lot of hits on google, does it?

I thought i was going to learn some new thing lol.

I don't know why people actually studying the Bible as if it actually meant something and was worthwhile to do so, would generate so much scorn from other Christians.

I do.

Whassup with that?

If I tell you where to find the answer, I may be
resemble a primate of the proof texting sort.

 

[SolomonVII]

I thought i was going to learn some new thing lol.

I guess I already learned my one lesson for the day.
The Bible doesn't actually say anything if you just leave it on the bookshelf.
Who knew?

I do.



If I tell you where to find the answer, I may be
resemble a primate of the proof texting sort.

Er, come again?
I was too much into this banana, and I forgot to pay attention.

Now excuse me while I go groom some lice our of mamma's beard.

 

[BlackSepulcher]

Sola Scripturists use Scripture to measure doctrine against.
It's just that simple.

No, they use their interpretation of Scripture to measure doctrine against. The veneration of Mary, for example, is deduced through the Bible, it just requires an incredible amount of detail you can't get from proof texting.

In reality, fundamentalism is the dismissal of Catholic teaching. It sits on legal fiction to perpetuate protest. Reformed doctrine is designed to be anti-Catholic, it is not designed to expound further enlightenment, which is ironic considering the Reformation freeloaded on the enlightenment phase of humanity.

Like this?:
Every Scripture passage is inspired by God.
All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting
people, and training them for a life that has God's approval.

I'm thinking maybe so

Exactly like that, because Paul was speaking of the Old Testament books and better yet, stated them as merely useful, not the prime authority.

 

[Albion]

In reality, fundamentalism is the dismissal of Catholic teaching.

Don't flatter yourself. Fundamentalism is a modern call for Christians of all churches who agree on the basics of the faith to unite against religious liberalism.

(I don't know why it would be inserted into a discussion of Sola Scriptura, however.)

 

[sunlover1]

No, they use their interpretation of Scripture to measure doctrine against.

True.
And let me apologize for being rude earlier. You're a good sport, and
I was having fun, but at your expense. Jesus died for you, so if I offended
you I am so sorry.

The veneration of Mary, for example, is deduced through the Bible, it just requires an incredible amount of detail you can't get from proof texting.

I disagree.
I 'venerated' Mary when I was RC and had never read the Bible.
Once I read it, I felt completely different about God and the things of God,
including Mary, His mother.

In reality, fundamentalism is the dismissal of Catholic teaching.

But we're discussing Scripture and it's use as a rule.
And interpretation. Do you feel God won't lead me to
understand His words?

 

[sunlover1]

I guess I already learned my one lesson for the day.
The Bible doesn't actually say anything if you just leave it on the bookshelf.
Who knew?

Why do you think God gave us a Bible Solomon?
Seriously, I have been thinking about this, and I know
He doesn't want us to live by every word He wrote,
but rather by every word that proceeds from His mouth.
He gave it to us, told us to study it, and that we might
be approved unto God. What's that word 'approved'
mean?
And what did He mean about not being 'ashamed"?
Does that have to do with "doing" the Word?
(Can't be a 'doer' of the word, without studying it)
Anyhow, I do believe that Christians are being
deceived by the devil who comes 'because OF the
Word" to steal that which was planted in their hearts.
And so maybe a spirit of error, which, when you have
been blinded by one, you can't see.
But if you were to have this, and ask God to 'show' you
truth, and then seek truth as if it were a treasure...
Am I rambling this beautiful morning?
Sorry
Just that I struggle with this "Scripture is not the rule"
attitude. Have been fighting for truth here for "Lo,
so many years" and I believe that we wrestle not
flesh and blood.
And so, strongholds and imaginations need to be
cast down, and every other high thing that would
exalt itself above the knowledge of God.

Er, come again?
I was too much into this banana, and I forgot to pay attention.

lol. Glad you're not offended either.
I think we have a good "bunch" here.

Exactly like that, because Paul was speaking of the Old Testament books

No, Paul was speaking of "ALL Scripture".
That's why He specifically said "ALL" Scripture.

and better yet, stated them as merely useful, not the prime authority.

Scripture is not my prime authority at all.
Mine goes like this:

1. God
2. conscience
3. Scripture

 

[SolomonVII]

]Why do you think God gave us a Bible Solomon?
Seriously, I have been thinking about this, and I know
He doesn't want us to live by every word He wrote,
but rather by every word that proceeds from His mouth.
He gave it to us, told us to study it, and that we might
be approved unto God.

But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,i
15
and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.j
16
* All scripturek is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,*
17
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.​

What's that word 'approved'
mean?
And what did He mean about not being 'ashamed"?
Does that have to do with "doing" the Word?
(Can't be a 'doer' of the word, without studying it)
Anyhow, I do believe that Christians are being
deceived by the devil who comes 'because OF the
Word" to steal that which was planted in their hearts.
And so maybe a spirit of error, which, when you have
been blinded by one, you can't see.
But if you were to have this, and ask God to 'show' you
truth, and then seek truth as if it were a treasure...
Am I rambling this beautiful morning?
Sorry

The immediate context of the verses quoted above is this.

The Dangers of the Last Days.*
1
But understand this: there will be terrifying times in the last days.a
2
People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious,b
3
callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good,
4
traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5
as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power. Reject them.c
6

Just that I struggle with this "Scripture is not the rule"
attitude. Have been fighting for truth here for "Lo,
so many years" and I believe that we wrestle not
flesh and blood.
And so, strongholds and imaginations need to be
cast down, and every other high thing that would
exalt itself above the knowledge of God.

The power of God is in his word.

Scripture is not my prime authority at all.
Mine goes like this:

1. God
2. conscience
3. Scripture

Scripture as the primary norm to focus our belief does not replace God or conscience. Scripture provides us wisdom in order to understand the nature of God— for "salvation through faith in Christ Jesus".
It does not replace conscience, but informs conscience. "Teaching, correction, refutation, training in righteousness" are directly related to steeling up our conscience.
There is power in that. There has demonstrably been power in that, as people who have thoroughly immersed themselves in the Bible have been allowing God's word to form and inform their consciences into making their realm of the Christian world into the freest and strongest people that has ever existed in human history.
Those that mock this process and thereby deny the power of religion: reject them.

 

[nestoj]

Wow, the sun sets early in Serbia!

I think it has set 60+ years ago and is still not rising.