Nope....not claiming that all history and science are contained in scripture. Both history and science are sources of truth outside scripture. Science in particular is literally the Word of God as it emanated from Him during the act of creation of the universe.
If any of the three disagree with the others, there is an error in understanding on the part of the interpreter.
Sola scripture is simply LUDICROUS. And the final "proof" of that is that the Protestant claimants themselves cannot agree on what Scripture says and means (and ignore large swathes of Scripture when it supports the Catholic position).
We are given freedom in Christ but along with that comes great responsibility.
But many are not comfortable with freedom so began to enslave themselves with all the rules and details again. Working out your salvation with fear and trembling is not easy. It is much easier to follow a set of rules that others have decided for us.
Jesus came to divide, not to bring peace. What you view as a bad thing is God at work. Iron sharpening is not pleasant. Where RC is wrong is not going through the process, thinking they know it all. Relying on rules and traditions.
As described in Revelation the church from the beginning must REPENT and go back to the simplicity of it's first love. It is not about the shiny things and details.
The scripture is to test the truthfulness of something. It is the touchstone for truth. We do not test truth against tradition. Finding the truth is never an easy process, it is hard and will cost us but is worth it.
Nearest I can tell is that from beginning God has desired a personal relationship with us. He doesn't want our institutions, our traditions, our offerings, he want us, body and soul. And thus the working out with fear and trembling..........................
I was not implying that you were...and for the life of me cannot see how you would assume that I had. But what a way to start off your reply. Backwards. sheesh. Receiving reply including such "off" notes, I often wonder why I even bother.
No argument there, for those two can be sources...though my mention of Gerald Schroeder was intended to hold notes of humor, even as I am myself rather persuaded with what he wrote in Genesis And The Big Bang and The Science of God.
If one were to be acquainted with and understand that pair of books, then my own semi-joking inclusion of him in the conversation may have made more sense.
Still, what does the above italicized "science and history" portion of your own comment have to do with the principle of sola scriptura as that was meant to be understood, and was demonstratively enough applied by the Reformers?
It seems to me that what I did write -- went right by you. You missed the meanings...but A.G. did not, not at all, herself even citing passages which came to my own mind when that (my own mind) wandered I was pondering how to address your own reply.
That may depend upon the so-called "science". A note of caution is called for (like sticky notes plastered all over the walls of the laboratory?) to be applied towards too entirely conceptualizing "science", and the literal actual Word of God (inclusive of all that is, beyond the mere texts themselves which we regard as His written Word) as being interchangeable. Or as is it could be expressed in common colloquialism -- "slow down Slim, you're coming to a curve..."
In the manner in which you presented it -- one is the Creation itself -- and the other is mankind's attempts to understand, and then utilize truth in regards to (chiefly) physical matter as that may be best established to be --- usually employing trial and error process, for what is "science" but an accumulation of the [understandable] results of such process?
Yet at the same time, to the manner or degree that knowledge of this world we live in (and the Universe around us -- what scant knowledge there is of that) be true, the physical realms more particularly (no pun intended?) which are in some way visible to us, are more accessible for ourselves to evaluate than are realms of spirit.
So said Augustine -- though not in so many words, and perhaps lacking the clarity of stipulation as towards the "other" two (science and history) with himself unwittingly or not having borrowed the primary concept from Grecian philosophy, applying that towards self-evaluation of an individual's (even his own) understanding of Scripture.
I can agree that the [above] italicized portion is true enough for our own purposes, yet will argue that due to the inherent limitations of the interpreters, it is impossible for the (human) interpreters to understand much of anything beyond that which can be measured, weighed, or otherwise evaluated by using our natural senses, the results being verifiable by replication of the experiment/evaluation --- without being given revelation from God.
Do you recall that Peter's brother Andrew, after Andrew had encountered the Christ, told his brother Peter -- "we have found the Messiah"?
How then could Jesus, when asking the disciples "who do you say that I am" have later said to Peter's own reply --- "flesh and blood did not reveal that to you" --- when Peter's own brother had in fact done that very thing (revealed --in spoken words, anyway, that Jesus was the Messiah) prior to the moment Jesus put that question to Peter more directly?
Understand what is going on there...and one can perhaps better know what the more original concept of "primacy" as that word could be applied to Peter, actually was (in comparison to the later arising conceptualization that this be a thing which is inheritable by way of later earthly succession to church "office").
The erroneous understanding of the principle which you do seem to hold, must be what makes it ludicrous -- to yourself, and apparently more than a few others around here, those persons most often being Roman Catholics.
That being most often the common denominator (when the argument is not taken up in similar form by the virulently atheistic) along with the principle as that was originally applied having been presented as challenge towards the RCC, when that Church ecclesiastical community had seriously lost it's way, having much departed from The Way (this confessed to by Counter-Reformers from within the RCC, also) betrays that the continuing attacks upon the principle itself (the efficacy of the written Word) is part of an ongoing effort to again re-assert "sola ecclesia" and put that in place of sola scriptura, whether yourself are conscious of the larger paradigm of apologetic discourse -- or not. By which I mean, your own motivations as for your own criticisms do appear to me to have been greatly influenced by the highly repetitious (and erroneous aspects) of RC apologetic.
The RCC had it's chance, had opportunity to demonstrate that itself was a shining (and solo) ecclesia, an end-all to beat all -- and miserably failed -- or else there would have not been need for the Reformation, in the first place.
How much "history" do you even know -- I do wonder.
Cannot agree on what the Scripture says? How so?
While we are on that aspect of the subject, I do notice that you have not yet established just what it is that Martin Luther allegedly "pitched out of the bible", yourself having made that claim while also badly misapplying a selected quasi-quote from him...
As for agreeing on what the Scriptures mean there is wide agreement among many (but admittedly not all) whom could possibly identified as "Protestant" for a wide range of shall we say (at some risk) fundamental understanding. As for what disagreement there are --- it is fair and fitting to remind that there is a range of differing view towards particular passages of Scripture among those whom are Roman Catholic --- in fact --- one must go to the so-called catechism to read -- a whole big 'ol pile of rather discombobulated the sayings and writings of men -- which can be shown to express conflicting viewpoints, if it be merely as for emphasis on one aspect of opinion & view of Scripture (and tradition also) or another, with there having always been a range of opinion within the Church.
IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY. Allow Philip Schaff, along with more modern-day assistance from Steve Perisho, found at http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/augustine/quote.html explain -- first how the saying is not considered derived from Augustine, and then how Marc' Antonio de Dominis (1560-1624), archbishop of Split (Spalato) himself utilized the saying.
You furthered (and ended) your accusational broadside, with;
Don't just talk about that while making the accusation, but instead show what allegedly 'large swathes of Scripture' are being ignored by those pesky protestants --- instead of it being more a case of there being widespread agreement among themselves for a great deal, including also, but not in the least limited towards disagreeing with certain and particular aspects of particularly Romish interpretations of the same Scriptures.
You had just expressed that Scripture itself is what is being "ignored", when that is (generally) not the situation.
If you cannot keep such simple differences well enough aligned during your own course of dissertation --- then how on earth could you ever sufficiently handle the various nuances (and veritable twists and turns) of Roman Catholic theology, unless that be something of a long-range & distant examination?
For one must be able to do that, and fully understand each of the competing (or comparable?) theologies before then being able to rightfully enough compare them.
For you to have proclaimed that these others, these so-called "protestants" which you speak of are "ignoring large swaths of Scripture" is less than convincing, coming as that does from one who has just now repeatedly demonstrated that they apparently either do not grasp the most common and widespread tenets of Evangelic theology by repeatedly misrepresenting what such simple concepts as sola scriptura mean, and do not mean, were not intended to mean, or apply towards.
Your ending parenthetical is also very much refuted by AlamoGirl having cited the passages which she did (for those came to my own mind also -- and that phenomena of theological agreement among many of we so-called "Protestants" on these pages is often a thing of beauty) in particular John 6:63, to which I will add mention of that specific portion of John 6:32 wherein Jesus is attributing to having said
which when well enough understood, and inclusive of the rest of the chapter (and much else besides, of course) leads us not towards a sacerdotalism of the kind which had come to be believed within the ranks of the RCC, inclusive of claim of "authority" on the part of a priestly class to, as many Roman Catholics today still say "confect the sacrifice", but rather instead towards a sense which includes aspect of receptionism among the priesthood of all (true) believers, when those assembled together in worship of God and the One (Jesus) whom He sent.
The Orthodox having long refrained from identifying too specifically just when the bread and wine becomes (or perhaps better yet -- simply is) the bodily present divinity of Christ, yet speak of and invite the Spirit to inhabit/become/transform, or again -- better yet -- have the bread to simply be that divinity.
In this, such personages as Calvin and Luther both (and a long line of other so-called "Protestants") can be seen to very much agree with one another, and the more ancient anaphora of the Orthodox also, as for considerations and conceptualization for the sought-for end results.
That said, it does seem to myself that many today are far too strictly memorialists in their own views towards this thanksgiving feast (wherein Christ himself as the paschal lamb is indeed the meal) yet to discern His spirit be present there, coming down to us from heaven, I will dare say one simply must have the presence of His spirit with themselves already --- perhaps save for those individuals down through history, who possibly first encountered Him truly while themselves partaking of that consecrated memorial meal.