James White gives a good summary of what Sola Scriptura means:
“The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
To be more specific, I provide the following definition: The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self- authenticating.
The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.”
So where do you get the idea that every believer must possess a Bible? I agree it is an admirable goal, but it is entirely possible for scripture “to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church” without every believer holding a copy in his or her hand.
The problem for the Catholic Church is that many of its controversial teachings are contrary to scripture - Purgatory, indulgences, primacy of the Pope.
Ok good question. Let's flesh this out a bit. Let's take a society pre-printing press where the people are mostly illiterate. Only a select few people--really probably only the heads of churches--have anything close to a collection of the Sacred Books. Now...how do you see Sola Scriptura working in this context?
The people rely on the pastor preaching. Now suppose the pastor says something that is contrary to Scripture. How would people find out? Who would correct him?
LOL. Chapter and verse please. Otherwise, you posted a fine tradition of men.
The Apostolic Churches predates the New Testament and in fact wrote them and compiled them decades later. The Church was formed after Pentecost without any New Testament scripture.
According to YOUR interpretation of Scripture.
Not being a chr*stian, I disagree vehemently with you about sola scriptura and regula fide, but these differences are small compared with the things I disagree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy about.
You yourself seem to be missing a most important point: the Catholic and Orthodox churches actually deny the total inerrancy of the Bible and the historicity of the events and people it describes because of the findings of modern "science" and the Biblical criticism of nineteenth century liberal Protestants. Whenever the church fathers and these latter things contradict each other they accept science and liberal Protestantism hands down, uniformly rejecting the right of the church fathers to pronounce on anything contrary to them. Yet they have the unmitigated gall to scold Fundamentalist Protestants for not accepting the church fathers!
Just what is it about the Six Days of Creation, Metushelach's 969 years, Noah's Flood, Jonah's great fish, or Daniel in the lion's den that threatens them so much? Why do they all but make rejection of these things a standard of their "orthodoxy" while condemning the modernity of Protestantism?
I'll never understand them, and yes, their hypocrisy infuriates me, which I am sure amuses them.