Replies

[D-fendr to Blogger:] If someone walked up to you and wished to learn about your religion, would you hand him a Bible and say read this? And then if he came back later with questions, would you say, 'read some more'? Ad infinitum..? ... I think the answer is of course, "No." ... So teaching and direction is done, is necessary is a requirement. "Sola Scriptura" is a misnomer, not practiced in it's literal sense. Would you agree?

No, I also would not agree. As you know, "Sola Scriptura" means only "Scripture alone". Using the plain meaning of the words, and in a vacuum, it is meaningless. It doesn't say anything. A meaning must be ascribed to it. I contrast this to another doctrine, that of "once saved always saved". Here, using the plain meaning, and in a vacuum, there IS meaning. Here, the clear implication is that once a person is saved, he can go out and do whatever he wants with the rest of his life and still be saved. Scripture clearly teaches against that, so Sola Scriptura says that it is bad doctrine, in this context.

The point is that there is no "literal sense" of Sola Scriptura the way there is with OSAS. Therefore, to criticize it you should at least take the meaning of it that is used by those who follow it. The way we users define it says that teaching is fine, including oral teaching.

I have seen criticisms of the doctrine saying that Sola Scriptura means everything from "Sola Scriptura does not allow teaching" to "if it's not in the Bible it isn't true" to "every word in the Bible must be taken only in its most literal sense", etc. All of these are false, and all of them sprung from two simple words that, when they sit there by themselves, don't mean anything. I hope you would agree that it isn't fair for non-followers to take the two words, define them as they wish, and then heap criticism upon their own made-up definitions, all the while accusing us of believing in it. We adherents to Sola Scriptura know what it means, and it is none of those things. :)