J
JesseW
Guest
It seems that most on this thread or mistaking Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura says that Scripture is the final and primary source, but not the only source. It is the ultimate authority.
Solo Scriptura is the belief that Scripture is the sole authority and that tradition is useless and misleading. This is the position of legalistic fundamantalism. Realistically speaking, Fundamentalists cannot claim the Trinity because it is derived from Church Tradition. Sola Scriptura can recognize the early creeds.
Protestants would claim that Sola Ecclesia was a reaction to the Reformation- that Tradition (represented by Magesterial authority), is infallible and equal to Scripture. What if Regula fidei was the belief that tradition was an infallible summary of Scripture that was passed on through the succession of the Apostles?
Sola Scriptura says that Scripture is the final and primary source, but not the only source. It is the ultimate authority.
Solo Scriptura is the belief that Scripture is the sole authority and that tradition is useless and misleading. This is the position of legalistic fundamantalism. Realistically speaking, Fundamentalists cannot claim the Trinity because it is derived from Church Tradition. Sola Scriptura can recognize the early creeds.
Protestants would claim that Sola Ecclesia was a reaction to the Reformation- that Tradition (represented by Magesterial authority), is infallible and equal to Scripture. What if Regula fidei was the belief that tradition was an infallible summary of Scripture that was passed on through the succession of the Apostles?