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

[nestoj]

​

"... 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!!!"

I could agree with the bible part. About the examples of tradition and "my way or highway" attitude - I think there was always a difference in Eucharistic bread preparation (I think that's what you're referring to) between East and West and nobody minded it, certainly not enough to split over it. More controversial claims about Virgin Mary (immaculate conception for instance) came much after the split, so they aren't something I could discuss. While we was together there was very little differences, and they were more or less, insignificant. Actually, I think there was much less tradition too. But, there's one important product of tradition, equally universal as the scripture: Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. That's a Sacred Tradition, actually a few decades older than the Bible canon, and is still standing.

 

[nestoj]

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

We should.

Your denomination is error free?

No, on two accounts.

Ви не говорите веома добро!

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

"Ви не говорите веома добро! " - translation: "What you're saying is wrong! "
Why, thanx sis....right back at ya!

 

[sunlover1]

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.

Amen!
We must be very careful who/what we let into our 'conscience' while
forming our beliefs.
THIS is a major reason we need to study, to show ourselves approved,
and to "meditate' on the Word of God, and HIDE His word in our HEARTS.

Because it's out of THIS deposit (in our heart) that we 'bring forth" FROM.

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.

Perhaps it's easier for them to "hear" the voice of God, and thus follow that
voice and thus, have victory in this journey, and great success in the kingdom
of God.

 

[sunlover1]

We should.

Let's!
Yes, we will.

No, on two accounts.

Is that a positive then? Two negatives?
I'm so confused and it's my own language!

"Ви не говорите веома добро! " - translation: "What you're saying is wrong! "
Why, thanx sis....right back at ya!

How'd that happen!? LOL
Obviously we better stick with english.

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

I roll with sola scriptura.

 

[nestoj]

Is that a positive then? Two negatives?
I'm so confused and it's my own language!

Well, first of all, it's not a denomination...

 

[sunlover1]

Well, first of all, it's not a denomination...

Ut oh, now we've run into disagreement

Originally Posted by nestoj

...We don't always understand what God said in a same way. That's the first logical problem with Sola Scriptura....
​

You did say a lot in that paragraph, and so I broke it down and I will first address this point because it's still OP related ...


We dont always understand what a priest says in the same way.
We don't always understand what a Catechism says in the same way.
We don't always understand what the Early Fathers said in the same way.

And ... we don't always understand what God says FACE to FACE...
25 “Who are you?” they asked.
“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied.
26 “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy,
and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”
27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.

 

[nestoj]

You did say a lot in that paragraph, and so I broke it down and I will first address this point because it's still OP related ...


We dont always understand what a priest says in the same way.
We don't always understand what a Catechism says in the same way.
We don't always understand what the Early Fathers said in the same way.

And ... we don't always understand what God says FACE to FACE...
25 “Who are you?” they asked.
“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied.
26 “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy,
and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”
27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.

True. All true. But, remember, I'm not the one attempting to use the Scripture as a measuring stick, or a rule-book. If we're to investigate and validate doctrine solely basing the validation on Scripture, then we should all agree on what it's communicating to us and compare doctrine to that universally accepted unit of measure. Otherwise, we're measuring the same thing in different units and without established rule of conversion of those measuring units. If we're to use it as a guide in personal growth in Christ, then the overall message is clear and there's no misunderstanding of it, so the nuances aren't that important. In that case we can freely disagree, without harm, on some small specifics. But, as I've said - if we're to measure doctrine against it, then it's not that simple.

 

[sunlover1]

True. All true. But, remember, I'm not the one attempting to use the Scripture as a measuring stick, or a rule-book. If we're to investigate and validate doctrine solely basing the validation on Scripture, then we should all agree on what it's communicating to us and compare doctrine to that universally accepted unit of measure. Otherwise, we're measuring the same thing in different units and without established rule of conversion of those measuring units.

Yes, we need the same ruler.

If we're to use it as a guide in personal growth in Christ, then the overall message is clear and there's no misunderstanding of it, so the nuances aren't that important. In that case we can freely disagree, without harm, on some small specifics. But, as I've said - if we're to measure doctrine against it, then it's not that simple.

I agree, it's not simple.

But we do need a standard and we do have the help of God.
Not all who SAY that they want to follow His truths really
WANT to follow His truths.
IN fact, IMO, the number is very small (If GT is any indication
of Christianity at large)

 

[nestoj]

Yes, we need the same ruler.



I agree, it's not simple.

But we do need a standard and we do have the help of God.
Not all who SAY that they want to follow His truths really
WANT to follow His truths.
IN fact, IMO, the number is very small (If GT is any indication
of Christianity at large)

Agreed.

 

[BlackSepulcher]

Ut oh, now we've run into disagreement

*referring to EO as not being a denomination*

That really is true, it can't technically be considered a denomination because the Roman and Greek Churches were one from the very beginning up until the Great Schism. That was Christianity until that time really. I mean, there wasn't much diversity in Christendom then, it was for the most part universally intact.

Do you know that awkward feeling you get when you see a distant relative you haven't seen since your childhood? Well, that's pretty much how it feels for a RC and an EO to cross paths.

 

[sunlover1]

*referring to EO as not being a denomination*

That really is true, it can't technically be considered a denomination because the Roman and Greek Churches were one from the very beginning up until the Great Schism. That was Christianity until that time really.

I understand that your church, and others claim this same thing.
I wish we all consider ourselves "The ONE church"
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that
there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought

I mean, there wasn't much diversity in Christendom then, it was for the most part universally intact.

11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed
me that there are quarrels among you.
12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow
Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

Do you know that awkward feeling you get when you see a distant relative you haven't seen since your childhood? Well, that's pretty much how it feels for a RC and an EO to cross paths.

Interesting description

Certainly, we have a different understanding of theology and history.
Maybe due to my Biblical worldview.
?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

62756081]I roll with sola scriptura.

I roll with "solo scriptura"



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by sunlover1

You did say a lot in that paragraph, and so I broke it down and I will first address this point because it's still OP related ...


We dont always understand what a priest says in the same way.
We don't always understand what a Catechism says in the same way.
We don't always understand what the Early Fathers said in the same way.

And ... we don't always understand what God says FACE to FACE...
25 “Who are you?” they asked.
“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied.
26 “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy,
and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”
27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.
​

True. All true. But, remember, I'm not the one attempting to use the Scripture as a measuring stick, or a rule-book. If we're to investigate and validate doctrine solely basing the validation on Scripture, then we should all agree on what it's communicating to us and compare doctrine to that universally accepted unit of measure. Otherwise, we're measuring the same thing in different units and without established rule of conversion of those measuring units. If we're to use it as a guide in personal growth in Christ, then the overall message is clear and there's no misunderstanding of it, so the nuances aren't that important. In that case we can freely disagree, without harm, on some small specifics.

But, as I've said - if we're to measure doctrine against it, then it's not that simple.

Agreed......



.

 

[BobRyan]

"

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."

Apostolic succession is a myth based on revisionism.

In actual history there is no connection at all between the multi-pope wars where Papal armies battled each other and killed fellow Catholics and the actual Apostles of the first century.

Often it is the SAME group of Cardinals electing the rival Popes and each of the multiple-lines of rival Popes have successors -- in some of the historic examples.

Ultimately the Emperor defrocks them all - appoints his OWN group of Cardinals and picks a new Pope of his own devising.

That is the "successor" we have today.

At least until the Pope "abolished forever" The Jesuit order and then we got a Jesuit Pope.

 

[sunlover1]

Agreed......



.

Which part?

 

[BobRyan]

*referring to EO as not being a denomination*

That really is true, it can't technically be considered a denomination because the Roman and Greek Churches were one from the very beginning up until the Great Schism..

They are both denominations split off from the one true church of the first century by their error - and so they persecuted the Christians that remained faithful to the faith of the NT Apostles.

In the history of Catholicism Popes sometimes attained office by bribe and assassination and often were at war against fellow popes.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Knee V]

"Apostolic succession" pertains to much more than just Roman Popes.

 

[Albion]

Apostolic succession is a myth based on revisionism.

In actual history there is no connection at all between the multi-pope wars where Papal armies battled each other and killed fellow Catholics and the actual Apostles of the first century.

Often it is the SAME group of Cardinals electing the rival Popes and each of the multiple-lines of rival Popes have successors -- in some of the historic examples.

None of that either describes Apostolic Succession or rebuts it. Apostolic Succession may not have been original with the church, but it was clearly in use before the end of the first century and has been retained in a number of different denominations for very good and legitimate reasons.

 

[Albion]

*referring to EO as not being a denomination*

That really is true, it can't technically be considered a denomination because the Roman and Greek Churches were one from the very beginning up until the Great Schism.

Well, the fact that they aren't "one" any more makes the word "denomination" entirely appropriate. That's all there is to that.