The one thing that those who claim Sola Scriptura have available to them is the original languages to better attempt to understand the meaning and intent of the words of the writers of scripture and Christ Himself while He was on earth. It is after all the words of the Apostles and Jesus which are most important in understanding.
On the other hand those who do not rely on Sola Scriptura also have one thing in common. That is the claim to extra Biblical revelation. The Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims all claim additional information and revelation from God. Who is to vouch for those revelations? Jesus words? Did Jesus announce Marys bodily assumption into heaven? Did Jesus announce the addition of veneration of a black rock? Did Jesus claim that men would become gods like the Mormons and Catholics do?
As for me and my house, we will rely on the original words of Jesus and those He chose to write the record He wished to be left for us. Not some words of a supposed prophet or magesterium who proclaim knowledge beyond what Jesus and the Apostles by Gods inspiration saw fit to leave as a full and complete account and proclaimed it to be enough to be prefect, thoroughly furnished.
"ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS: That the man of GOd may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
There may be differences in interpretation of scripture but to add to that the words of fallible men is pure folly and a sure road to distruction.
Dear Cynical Bear, that is not my intent. I'm on your side,and on the side of the traditional, historic understanding of Scripture. It's obvious that most people who have adhered to "Sola Scriptura" over the last 5 centuries are also AGAINST the Gay Agenda. Anyone can see that.
My point is that "Sola Scriptura" alone doesn't refute the Gay Agenda in a disposative way as long as "Gay Christian" theologians can bring forth their own "Scripture scholarship" which sets aside the traditional, historic understnading of the Church, as explained in Post # 65, and at truly boggling length at the many "Gay Christian" websites (Link).
You can tell them, "Your 'gay interpretations' are not what the Church has traditionally thought to be the meaning of Scripture".
And they will say, "So what? We don't care what you traditionally thought. We think the Church was in error for all those centuries. WE are the ones who are going by Sola Scriptura."
Here's what I want to know. At that point, what do YOU say?
There’s a misunderstanding, deliberate or not, about what sola scriptura is.
Scripture is the final and ultimate authority. God’s word is settled in heaven and not the least stroke of the pen shall pass away from it. It is what it is, the inspired, Spirit breathed word of God.
If Scripture needs interpretation, then something like the CCC needs interpretation. The CCC is not exempt from needing interpretation any more than Scripture is and is just as prone to misinterpretation as Scripture is.
Just as there is no way that anyone can prevent someone from deliberately misinterpreting Scripture if they so choose, just as there is no way of preventing anyone from deliberately misinterpreting the CCC if they so choose.
So the contention that because Scripture can be misinterpreted therefore the concept of individual interpretation is rendered invalid is an invalid argument itself. EVERYTHING that humans produce is subject to errors in or deliberate misinterpretation. It is not the fault or responsibility of the author, nor does it discredit the work. It only discredits the person doing the misinterpretation.
Scripture is true, inerrant, infallible, God breathed. You line up with it or you’re wrong.