What is "Solo" Scriptura, and how does it differ from "Sola" Scriptura?


#1

Apart from the “a” and the “o”, how does Solo Scriptura differentiate itself from Sola Scriptura? I know of the Protestant “Sola” doctrine well enough, but the “Solo” is a new one for me. Anyone care to elaborate?


#2

There is no difference. “Solo” is an error - there is no such thing as “Solo Scriptura.”


#3

Like they say, if all else fails, google it.:wink:

And as it turns out “Solo” Scriptura is an actual concept amongst certain Evangelical scholars, click here and read Protestant (Sola believer) theologian Keith Mathison’s critique of it.

And whether it is spelled Sola or Solo, either concept/doctrine is just as much an error as the other from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective.


#4

[quote=Catholic29]Apart from the “a” and the “o”, how does Solo Scriptura differentiate itself from Sola Scriptura? I know of the Protestant “Sola” doctrine well enough, but the “Solo” is a new one for me. Anyone care to elaborate?
[/quote]

Certain Evangelical dispensationalist theologians proposed that to be saved a person can’t just or only make Jesus “Savior” but has to make Him “Lord” of their life. It was called the Lordship controversy, I recall. The whole controversy came about from defining what faith alone sola fide was, some said it actually taught antinomianism (that we don’t have to keep the moral laws of Christ i.e. love and that we only need mental assent). Reformed Protestants denied that formulary of sola fide and said it wasn’t either Scriptural nor what Luther taught. Unfortunately, both sides had amunition since Luther spoke in sort of double speak about sola fide, and Protestants unlike Catholics don’t have anyone who can say with certainty or true authority what is absolute truth and what isn’t; we have the magisterium who in union with the pope that can settle these types of matters. Anyway here is a Protestant I found in a google search explaining what it is:

In the 1980s and early 1990s, a controversy erupted among dispensationalists which came to be referred to as the Lordship Salvation controversy. On one side of the debate were men such as Zane Hodges1 and Charles Ryrie2 who taught a reductionistic doctrine of *solafide *which absolutized the word “alone” in the phrase “justification by faith alone” and removed it from its overall theological context. Faith was reduced to little more than assent to the truthfulness of certain biblical propositions. Repentance, sanctification, submission to Christ’s Lordship, love, and perseverance were all said to be unnecessary for salvation. Advocates of this position claimed that it was the classical Reformation position taught by Martin Luther and John Calvin. On the other side of the debate was John MacArthur who argued that these men were clearly abandoning the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone.3 In addition to the books written by the primary dispensationalist participants, numerous Reformed theologians wrote books and articles criticizing this alteration of the doctrine of solafide.4A heated theological controversy began which continues in some circles even to this day.


#5

[quote=Catholic29]Like they say, if all else fails, google it.:wink:

And as it turns out “Solo” Scriptura is an actual concept amongst certain Evangelical scholars, click here and read Protestant (Sola believer) theologian Keith Mathison’s critique of it.

And whether it is spelled Sola or Solo, either concept/doctrine is just as much an error as the other from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective.
[/quote]

The authors of the website use both terms “sola” and “solo,” as if they were the same thing, indicating that they (1) think that either term is accurate; or (2) forgot to use a spell-check.

“Sola scriptura” is a Latin term, and the adjective must agree with the noun. Since the noun is feminine (“scripturA”), the adjective must be feminine (“solA”) as well.


#6

A Lutheran told me that Sola Scriptura is what your lutheran, Anglican and such would espouse. Tradition is actually taken into account.

Solo Scriptura is more of what the Fundamentalist would believe, truly Bible alone.

So there would be distinctions for some Protestants on this.


#7

[quote=MariaG]A Lutheran told me that Sola Scriptura is what your lutheran, Anglican and such would espouse. Tradition is actually taken into account.

Solo Scriptura is more of what the Fundamentalist would believe, truly Bible alone.

So there would be distinctions for some Protestants on this.
[/quote]

Whether used by a Catholic or Protestant the term “Solo Scriptura” is meant (usually) as a pejorative. The term “Sola Scriptura” is the correct (Latin) term for the belief that the Bible is the final court of arbitration for faith and morals (as opposed to Sacred Tradition, the Bible, and the teaching Magesterium, for example).

Use “Solo Scriptura” when you want to belittle someone else’s beliefs. Otherwise, Sola Scriptura is the correct usage.

Blessings,
Richard


#8

Ah, I see:

Douglas Jones has coined the term solo *scriptura *to refer to this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura.5


#9

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.