The difference between solo and sola Scriptura

[historyb]

To be truthful there is only one definition of Sola Scriptura and that most commonly thought definition are wrong. Most have when talking about Sola Scriptura mean Solo Scripture. Hence Confessor01’s great attempt at trying to dispel the wrong definition with the right one.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Catholic Dude,

1. A good way to understand how sola Scriptura views Church history and councils is that they are authoritative, but subservient to the Bible. An analogy might be that you would accept a history professor’s testimony on something, but if you look to the primary sources and they contradict him, then you trust the latter. The entire Church is to submit to Scripture as the only infallible rule of faith and practice, but Church history can still be used in arguments.

But this breaks down at the end of the day, because history can be rejected at any time if a Protestant deems it non-Scriptural. The issue of infant baptism is case in point: Baptists say regardless of what history says, the Bible doesn’t teach it.

For instance, hyper-preterists try to argue their view as if it can be innocently taken from Scripture, but if they are correct, then no one in about 2000 years of Church history (sparing a few bizarre counterexamples, perhaps) has been correct about Jesus’s future second coming, among other things.

But this amounts to nothing at the end of the day, as the infant baptism example shows. The same can be said for the issue of the “imputed alien righteousness of Christ,” which is a doctrine unheard of until Luther (and Luther in his “tower experience” even admits this). The Protestant response is simple: It doesn’t matter what history attests to if Scripture teaches otherwise.

Protestants believe that God has given Scripture to His Church as the infallible rule of faith and practice, but they also believe that He providentially maintains His Church throughout history. Therefore appeals to Church history, though not as powerful as appeals to Scripture, are warranted.

This actually is a contradiction, although subtle. If you believe God providentially guides the Church in history, then appealing to Church history is as powerful as appealing to Scripture. Otherwise the “providence” is in name only. If you believe God providentially guided the Church at an Ecumenical Council, then that Council must be submitted to, otherwise it’s a slap in God’s face. However, if you don’t believe God providentially guided a Council, then you have no business looking to the Council at all.

1. I think Baptists are wrong, both historically and Scripturally. But the problem is that they think they have an historical case, as well as a Scriptural one. In that case, they’re at least not betraying their own principles. They’re misapplying them in my estimation, but not betraying them.

But you’ve trapped yourself here though, because you have no better argument than them. The Baptists are just as “sola scriptura” as you. They don’t need to consider positive proof from history if they believe Scripture rejects infant baptism, thus you can hold up history all day but it’s still a non-issue, ultimately. As for “misapplying” anything, they would simply turn the accusation around on you, claiming you’re misapplying Scripture.
If someone ultimately doesn’t have to listen to Church History, which even you’ve admitted, then the distinction between sola and solo is clearly seen to be a non-distinction.

1. Our sins are washed away in baptism, so long as we’re talking about the baptism by the Holy Spirit. **Baptism by water signifies this, though it does not effect it **ex opere operato. I admit Protestants may be wrong about this, but please don’t act as if we are betraying our own principles by affirming the Nicene Creed.

You are rejecting that Baptism line of the Nicene Creed right here, making Baptism only a sign that sins were forgiven, rather than a means.

1. You raise very interesting points regarding the Council of Ephesus. However, please excuse my ignorance, but I’m not sure which council that is. Could you tell me what year it was conducted?

The Council of Ephesus is the 3rd Ecumenical Council (431 AD), it is the most important Council in Church History after Nicea, and it dealt with Nestorianism.

1. Otherwise, it seems you are making a false dichotomy: either accept every alleged council on its own authority or accept “me and my Bible-ism.” On the contrary, if it is the case that the true Church was not represented at certain councils (i.e. if the “popular” church was corrupted by then),** and if those certain councils went against the clear witness of Scripture, then they will be rejected.** But it does not follow that we reject any resemblance of Church authority.

The problem is that you want to affirm two things at once: giving due respect to Church Councils while retaining the right to reject anything they say as unBiblical.
Either the Church truly is authoritative, and thus you submit, or it is not authoritative and you DECIDE WHEN you want to submit to what it teaches. A ‘pick and choose’ authority is no authority at all.

It’s the same concept with the authority of Bishops. Either the Bishop has genuine authority over the layman, such that the layman must submit, or he doesnt. If the layman can pick and choose when he wants to obey the Bishop, then the bishop has no genuine authority.

 

[Confessor01]

But this breaks down at the end of the day, because history can be rejected at any time if a Protestant deems it non-Scriptural. The issue of infant baptism is case in point: Baptists say regardless of what history says, the Bible doesn’t teach it.

You make it sound as if some Protestant arbitrarily says that doctrine X is non-Scriptural, then he can be correct in that claim – because he is not under the auspices of an infallible authority. Please remember that the Protestant argument can be legitimate only if Scripture actually teaches a specific doctrine clearly – not just if someone claims that it does.

If you believe God providentially guides the Church in history, then appealing to Church history is as powerful as appealing to Scripture.

Not necessarily, for belief in God’s providential control of the Church simply necessitates that His Church at all times will stand in history and eventually be victorious – not that anyone claiming to be His Church must be correct.

You are rejecting that Baptism line of the Nicene Creed right here, making Baptism only a sign that sins were forgiven, rather than a means.

I am saying that baptism by water is a sign of the true baptism by the Spirit, and that the latter is the means of the forgiveness of sins.

Besides, how do you know your interpretation is correct?

 

[CaptainPicard]

Often sola Scriptura is conveyed to be a radically individualistic and atomistic doctrine that allows everyone to be their own interpreters, giving no weight to what the Church has historically understood. But this is false. The doctrine critiqued as such is actually a perversion of sola Scriptura called solo Scriptura, pejoratively referred to as “me and my Bible-ism.”

On the contrary, “Many people today wrongly think that the Bible is the only authority for our faith and life. But this is not what the reformers taught. They taught that the Bible is the only infallible rule and authority for faith and life. The reformers never intended for people to reject the authority of the church.” source] <<The source is a Microsoft Word document.

The Church of Christ (i.e., the Restorationist sect) has argued for the principle of solo Scriptura, claiming it to be sola Scriptura, and claiming that other churches (ones who actually hold to sola Scriptura) believe only in pseudo-sola Scriptura. But their repudiation of creeds (which is basically written beliefs) and confessions is simply nonsensical.

Like some other posts I have made, this thread is not intended to subvert any particular Roman Catholic doctrine, but rather to let people understand sola Scriptura properly. The broad evangelicalism that is much of Protestantism today essentially holds to solo rather than sola. But historic Reformed orthodoxy stresses the importance of the Church and of confessions. Particularly, I hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith, convinced that it is the most accurate summation of Biblical teachings. I do not believe it is infallible (incapable of error) as I believe Scripture is, but I do believe it is correct.

There is no such thing as “lone ranger” Christians, as both Reformed Protestants and Roman Catholics know.

I was wondering if you could clarify on exactly how it is that the reformed tradition views creeds? It seems to me that the Reformed position is that creeds are useful so far as they match with your biblical interpretation. I come to this conclusion because you seem to reject creeds and church fathers when they don’t agree with you. I believe that it logically follows from this that creeds have zero authority on their own and that your biblical interpretation alone holds sway.
So why not get rid of the middleman as it has no practical usage? It seems to me that the protestants that don’t give any special privelage to creeds hold a position that is more internally logical. They recognize that if the creeds have no authority on their own, then they have no authority at all.

On an unrelated note, I sometimes read the reformed forum that you are a member of. I’m sure that you are finding the interchange of information on this forum to be a very healthy thing. Your forum, doesn’t allow “heresy” (ie differing views). I can tell you by firsthand observation, that the fruits of this policy is misinformation about the Catholic church (as false understandings on Catholic teaching are rarely corrected as nobody has the motivation to do so) and a lack of knowledge about the best arguments for Catholic teaching. The fruit of all this misinformation remaining uncorrected is a certain amount of Catholic parnoia, which is not conducive to clear thinking. This benefits neither Catholics nor Calvinists. Perhaps you could recommend opening up a forum specifically for discussion with people of different creeds?

One more thing, for a Catholic understanding on how the Catholic faith squares up with historical Christianity, I’d recommend reading Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctine at some point, if you haven’t already.
newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

 

[imkingdad]

For those who have studied the issue, the solO versus solA distinction is an invented one. This distinction is an attempt to salvage Sola Scriptura, but it easily breaks down and fails upon close examination.

For example the solA crowd argues that it doesn’t just brush off historical Creeds and Councils and such, yet when specifics are examined that is in fact what they do. Sola Scriptura means any doctrine not derived from Scripture is not binding on the Christian, regardless of how well attested to in history/creeds/etc.

The most solid example of this false solO versus solA distinction is the issue of infant Baptism. There is historical Christian testimony to the issue of infant baptism, and many Protestants look to this (along with Scripture) for affirming the doctrine. However, Baptists are a notable exception, because they reject infant baptism and are very clear that regardless of what history attests to, they are not bound to it but only to the Scriptures. Yet the fact is conservative Baptists adhere to Sola Scriptura just as ‘faithfully’ as any conservative Protestant denomination. You cannot accuse them of solO at all.

To add another example,I will point to the 2nd and 3rd Ecumenical Councils. Protestants have historically affirmed these Councils, at least on the surface, and in attempt to stay away from ‘solO’, but upon close examination even their own claim breaks down.

1. The Nicene Creed (composed in the first 2 Ecumenical Councils) says:“We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”
   No historic Protestant believes in Baptismal regeneration, that Baptism really forgives sins. Thus they are forced into a ‘solO’ situation right there.
2. The Council of Ephesus which formally defined the correct understanding of Christ as He relates to His Human Nature and Divine Nature used this argument as one of its KEY examples for their teaching:“Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us [John 6]: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood.”
   ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.viii.html
   Here we see what ALL GENUINE CHRISTIANS way back at the time of this Council affirmed: (1) The Eucharist is a “sacrifice”, (2) the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, (3) that John 6 is talking about the Eucharist.
   What Ephesus taught is nothing short of heresy and blasphemy to Protestant ears. No Protestant can claim to be taking creeds and such into account when they reject such things in favor of “yeah, but that’s not what Scripture really says.”

As for your quote about “rejecting the authority of the Church,” the fact is in Protestantism the “authority of the Church” is whatever the individual want’s it to be, as 2 Tim 4:3 warns against (ie “itching ears”).

** Thank you for a fine set of explanations. **
Unfortunately you can & did get the weasel dance from our good natured Pro-test-ant. The crux of either Sola or solo scriptura falls to the overwhelming need for both to submit themselves to Catholic Tradition in so much as the Bible/Scripure nowhere testifies of itself. The NT references to scripture are all but 1 to the OT and even then to some Books & chapters not contained in the “reformers” version of scripture.

Clearly the Bible they have is different than the one that Luther & Calvin etc. had.
Even the copies of the KJV today are severely lacking when compared to the original text (available on-line).

Hence the Primacy of scripture itself, is based upon the Tradition that formed & finalized it and that was based in part upon the earliest teachings handed down, as well as, early letters & history by those both inside & outside the “Church” dating from the earliest days of the Church,

The fact that these “reformist” churches find it so essential to attack, demean and belittle the rich heritage that they sprung forth from in order to justify their very existence much less their Doctrinal forms & functions and their changes to them (traditions & Scripture) speaks volumes.

The Fact that our Pro-test-ant friend seeks to throw up a false facade (sola or solo) in no way lessens the errors that emanate from the Reformers Refusal to Submit to Church Authority which they claim they still do but only if & when it suits their Situation. In reality, the vast number of protestant churches prove how little submission to Church Authority actual does or has ever existed within their ranks, thus further neutering his argument.

 

[gookykookypig]

Solo Scriptura? LOL

Check your Latin, sir.

 

[JustaServant]

1. Open up your local phone book.
2. Count the number of churches/denominations in your area.

Problem solved.

 

[Confessor01]

Capta(name removed by moderator)icard,

I was wondering if you could clarify on exactly how it is that the reformed tradition views creeds? It seems to me that the Reformed position is that creeds are useful so far as they match with your biblical interpretation. I come to this conclusion because you seem to reject creeds and church fathers when they don’t agree with you. I believe that it logically follows from this that creeds have zero authority on their own and that your biblical interpretation alone holds sway.

What you must realize is that Scripture doesn’t just say whatever people want it to say. Even without declaring one interpretation as infallible, it is still the case that certain interpretations can be judged against the text itself. This is an obviously true statement, given that Catholics believe that the Bible supports their doctrine and argue against Protestants to show why the Bible does not support their doctrine.

Once it is realized that there is a distinction between what people claim Scripture teaches and what Scripture actually teaches, the false dichotomy of sola Scriptura vs. an infallible Magisterium is exploded.

So, to answer your question: Protestants reject creeds first and foremost when they contradict the Bible, though if it is historically implausible that such a mistake could be made at that point in history, then the case is strongly reconsidered. For instance, a Protestant could argue that it’s foolish to deny the Trinity from Scripture or from history. If he argued from history, he would basically be saying that it is extremely implausible (nigh impossible) for the Church to have held to a false doctrine for 2000 years – and therefore the historical evidence bears witness to the fact that the Trinity is contained in the Scriptures. The historical evidence does not stand by itself; it points to what likely is contained in the Scriptures.

If you erase these distinctions and conflate notions that shouldn’t be conflated, then you will come to false understandings of the Reformed view of Church history and creeds.

Your forum, doesn’t allow “heresy” (ie differing views). I can tell you by firsthand observation, that the fruits of this policy is misinformation about the Catholic church (as false understandings on Catholic teaching are rarely corrected as nobody has the motivation to do so) and a lack of knowledge about the best arguments for Catholic teaching. The fruit of all this misinformation remaining uncorrected is a certain amount of Catholic parnoia, which is not conducive to clear thinking. This benefits neither Catholics nor Calvinists. Perhaps you could recommend opening up a forum specifically for discussion with people of different creeds?

The Puritan Board is a confessional board because only when you require agreement on main points of doctrine can all parties legitimately dig deeper into the doctrine. For instance, if this forum were restricted to Catholic membership, then no time would be spent arguing against Protestants or atheists. More time could be spent in discussing Catholic doctrine more deeply.

I realize that this can lead to some misunderstanding, because there are not advocates of the specific contra-confessional views on the board itself. However, from what I have seen, it is mostly an accurate representation, and other PB members will correct you if you make a straw man.

However, if there is some particularly grievous misrepresentation, please tell me and I will personally work to correct it on the PB.

 

[Confessor01]

1. Open up your local phone book.
2. Count the number of churches/denominations in your area.

Problem solved.

This is being discussed in this thread, so if you would desire to argue this point, please respond there.

 

[paul_c]

Ben,
once again, I’d like to remind you of the purpose of this forum. It is afterall, CATHOLIC ANSWERS FORUM, designed to give Catholic Answers to any questions that might come up. When you ask the difference between solo and Sola scriptura, you are no longer asking a question that has a Catholic Answer. That’s why you are getting all of us telling you that both are wrong. That IS the Catholic Answer.

Beyond that, I’d like to point out to you that on at least a couple of threads now, you are positioning yourself as against the Fundamentalists. Your are doing it here and you did it in another thread on Sola Fide. But you are just talking in relative terms.

Lets face it, the whole question of Sola/solo Scriptura is one of authority to define doctrine. Once the Protestants left the chruch, they lost the physical link to the Apostles and had to make due with the written link. But this is hugely flawed because people can and do read different things into the written word. Clearly, Catholics, Reformed Protestants and Fundamentalists, all read (essentially) the Same bible (minus the deuterocanoncal books), yet come to very different conclusions on a myriad of substantive issues. Catholics have the Magesterium to define the correct interpretations, but protestants have no authority other than themselves.

 

[Confessor01]

Ben,
once again, I’d like to remind you of the purpose of this forum. It is afterall, CATHOLIC ANSWERS FORUM, designed to give Catholic Answers to any questions that might come up. When you ask the difference between solo and Sola scriptura, you are no longer asking a question that has a Catholic Answer. That’s why you are getting all of us telling you that both are wrong. That IS the Catholic Answer.

Honestly, I’m not asking anything. I believe there is a misconception concerning what sola Scriptura entails, and I am attempting to bury the misconception. I might be wrong (hence the argument), but that doesn’t stop my attempt.

However, if I should not be doing – i.e., if I should just be asking questions rather than attempting to remove straw men – then tell me and I will stop.

Beyond that, I’d like to point out to you that on at least a couple of threads now, you are positioning yourself as against the Fundamentalists. Your are doing it here and you did it in another thread on Sola Fide. But you are just talking in relative terms.

Lets face it, the whole question of Sola/solo Scriptura is one of authority to define doctrine. Once the Protestants left the chruch, they lost the physical link to the Apostles and had to make due with the written link. But this is hugely flawed because people can and do read different things into the written word. Clearly, Catholics, Reformed Protestants and Fundamentalists, all read (essentially) the Same bible (minus the deuterocanoncal books), yet come to very different conclusions on a myriad of substantive issues. Catholics have the Magesterium to define the correct interpretations, but protestants have no authority other than themselves.

These arguments have already been trotted out and dealt with.

Furthermore, when you say things like, “But you are just talking in relative terms,” and, “let’s face it,” you make it sound as if I have some personal knowledge that I just know I’m wrong. Please don’t do that.

 

[MercyMia]

The church of christ, founded here in the United States as part of the restoration movement preaches the use of “sola scriptora.” BUT in order to justify that claim they base their authority on the fact of the “Great Apostacy” that suppossedly took place at some point in history. But the apostacy is not recorded or foretold in the bible… neither do the words Alexander Campbell (their founder) appear in the bible. To justify their existance they have to rely on non-biblical false history. It is a very stubborn branch of theology.

 

[Confessor01]

The church of christ, founded here in the United States as part of the restoration movement preaches the use of “sola scriptora.” BUT in order to justify that claim they base their authority on the fact of the “Great Apostacy” that suppossedly took place at some point in history. But the apostacy is not recorded or foretold in the bible… neither do the words Alexander Campbell (their founder) appear in the bible. To justify their existance they have to rely on non-biblical false history. It is a very stubborn branch of theology.

They are stubborn indeed. They are one of the churches that thinks all “creeds” are a denial of sola Scriptura – not realizing that creeds are simply written-down beliefs.

Moreover, they are a church who practices solo Scriptura and who impugns sola Scriptura churches as “pseudo-sola Scriptura.” But on the other hand they are comprised entirely of autonomous congregations, so it might be wrong to say, “All Churches of Christ believe X.”

 

[MercyMia]

Yes - they use the creed, “No creed but the Bible.” LOL. They also have the “5 acts of worship” that must be followed at every gathering. Um…that phrase doesn’t exist in the bible. Ahem.

And as far as each congregation being autonomous - yes that’s true - BUT they go around this by being the denomination which puts out the single most publications. Basically these are nudge nudge wink wink instructions for members while they can still claim not have “official” documents of instruction. They are notorious for splits and hard feelings in congregations over very simple issues anyways.