This guy has no understanding of Sola Scriptura.
He is describing solo scriptura.
Stopped reading after the first few sentences, no reason to even try to disagree with him.
RE: This guy has no understanding of Sola Scriptura.
He is describing solo scriptura.
_______________________________________
Many Roman Catholic energies more often than not are aimed at the Anabaptist error that we call Solo Scriptura.
Here the person affirms that all he needs is himself and his Bible. The wisdom of the church in history, the community of believers, studying scripture humbly together, are all deemed irrelevant to understanding the things of God. Solo scriptura is reprehensible and ignorant and a-historical.
But many Roman Catholics continue to erect this strawman and then call it Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura, like the Scriptures themselves, recognizes that God has gifted the church with teachers and pastors.
It recognizes that the church has progressed and reached consensus on critical issues in and through the ancient ecumenical creeds.
It affirms with vigor that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants.
But it also affirms that even these giants have feet of clay (yes, Popes and Saints included ).
And there is where the Bible does in the end teach sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is a biblical doctrine not because the Bible says so. That would be a tautology- the kind of argument we find in that collection of lies the Book of Mormon.
Instead the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God. It has been attested, authenticated, by God Himself. Miracles serve as the divine imprimatur, the proof that this is a message of God. This is how Nicodemus reasoned when he said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). This is also how Jesus Himself reasoned when He first forgave the sins of the paralytic lowered through the roof. In response to the unspoken charge that He had blasphemed, Jesus told the man, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house” (Matthew 9:1-8).
Here’s the other thing that might surprise the Catholic.... I would be quite content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the ancient creeds of the church under the following conditions.
1) First, those who gathered to formulate these creeds would need to have their message authenticated by miraculous works. Let them raise men from the dead like Christ and His apostles and prophets did.
2) Second, we must add those creeds to our Bibles. If both sources are equally authoritative, why do we separate them?
3) In like manner, I’d be content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the statements of the Pope when He speaks ex cathedra.
First, however, let him raise men from the dead. Second, let us add his words, assuming he would even tell us what they were, to our canon.
But wait, there’s more. I want an authoritative list, in both instances of what these messages are.
I want the Roman Catholic to show me a list of infallible papal or consiliar statements.
Finally, when we talk about the problem of interpretation we run headlong into the problem of the infinite regress.
That is, those who are less strident in their views on tradition, who deny that tradition carries additional content to the Scripture, instead argue that church tradition gives an infallible and inerrant interpretation of Scripture.
Okay. Where then can we find an infallible and inerrant interpretation of the interpretation?
Assuming we could succeed there, of course, we would need an inerrant interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation. Ad nauseum.
But let’s stop here.
I believe that Scripture is God’s word and it is perspicuous, understandable. It says what it means and means what it says.
It is attested by the miraculous power of God. And it is all these things, alone. It alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work.
I get suspicious of anyone who tells me that MORE is required to understand, or MORE is required to obey.
Well, I'll stop right here at your post. Most of the first 37 Say the OP is wrong. Because, well it's wrong. That's about it. You, at least have the honesty to admit to not reading it all. So, here is one and only one point I will ask for a refutation.
Please read this short snip
The early Church (in the time of the Apostles) did not have the books of the New Testament (mostly since they were still being written), and it wasn’t until many generations later that these books were codified and the canon was created. The Church spent the bulk of its early life without these New Testament scriptures, thus, Sola Scriptura is historically speaking a fairly new idea (it’s hard to preach “Scripture Alone” when you don’t yet have Scriptures…).
The question this raises is this: What was the means by with the early church (for at least a couple hundred years) was kept free from error? How was anyone to know to not consult, say, The Gospel of Thomas?