SOLA SCRIPTURA
Orthodoxy claims that tradition has equal credibility as Scripture, on the basis of it being originated by the early church, excluding the possibility of heresy. The problem with this view is that Scripture itself records the rise of heresy within the lifetime of the Apostles themselves.
So claiming tradition is a better alternative to the leading of the Holy Spirit based on pedigree or provenance is the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.
The accusation is framed in the form of:
Why do you think you have the corner on the truth when the early church fathers were closer to the source, both chronologically and geographically.
The problem with this view is that the early church fathers were products of their times and the dominant influence of the times times was Greek and Roman thought, basically pagan dualism. Irenaeus formed his doctrine of original sin not on scripture but on anti materialistic views of dualism. Matter is evil, spirit is good, when Jewish teaching was that God created the world and declared it to be good. Justin taught humanism, the inevitable arc of attaining to perfection inherent in all of mankind. So the record of the ECF is not white as snow
However it's not a slam dunk for sola scriptura.
The problem of biblical interpretation is a problem of infinite regress.
A claims that text X is interpreted as P by the leading of the holy Spirit and is supported by the interpretation L of text H again by the leading of the Holy Spirit..
B similarly claims that text X is interpreted as Q by the leading of the holy Spirit and is supported by the interpretation L of text H again by the leading of the Holy Spirit.
How does one reach a definitive conclusion, a view built on rock and not on sand?
It's a common problem and the solution is common as well.
In courts of Law, the opposing counsels both present cases, one defending, one prosecuting. The one that passes muster is the one with the least inconsistencies, the one with the least unexplained, unanswered questions.
Who has presented the better case, the better explanation to what transpired, in the following criminal investigation?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze
Obviously the one who has the least unanswered question, the least holes in his theory.
Why has the doctrinal development in the separate pools of orthodoxy and evangelicalism sunk to the lows they occupy now? Because control of that development is in the hands of a few, who would rather live with paradoxes and mysteries than with answers that unsettles the status quo, especially if that status quo benefits those in control.
Let's get this straight: no fair and objective view can be reached if the study is controlled by those with vested interests. It's called conflict of interest.
Result: incoherent, inconclusive views. Doctrine that makes sense in isolation, but when viewed as a body of works, filled with contradiction.
Are there group that ever reach a coherent theology? These exist, but they are small pools...that's because those who possess a correct theology will have problems in teaching the doctrine. Setting it down in writing leads to the possibility of further misinterpretation.
Obviously this state of affairs that is unacceptable. How are we to plant churches if we cannot give them good doctrine?
Two things need to be done. First, provide them with an effective interpretive methodology. Second, set the criteria for assesing a good church.
1 Corinthians 14:26 is the method.
The criteria for assessing if a church has reached maturity is identified in churches like Macedonia and Achaia. Not surprisingly, the epistles were written to problematic churches, churches that needed correction. Macedonia and Achaia are only mentioned as churches to be imitated.
2 Corinthians 8: 1Now, brethren, we wish to make known to you the grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia, 2that in a great ordeal of affliction their abundance of joy and their deep poverty overflowed in the wealth of their liberality
Summary
1 Edification was through the priest hood of believers, which followed Paul's method to become mature by asking for the leading of the Holy Spirit both in receiving revelation and judging revelation, to confirm that the message was from God and not a result of too much pizza the previous night. The view would give a coherent interpretation of SCRIPTURE, not add to it. NT text is basically an explanation of how the Cross fulfilled OT prophecy. To extract the explanation, all one has to do is to ask for the Holy Spirit, hidden from the wise, but given freely to the poor and uneducated.
Isaiah 55:
1“Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters;
And you who have no money come, buy and eat.
Come, buy wine and milk
Without money and without cost.
2“Why do you spend money for what is not bread,
And your wages for what does not satisfy?
Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good,
And delight yourself in abundance.
3“Incline your ear and come to Me.
Listen, that you may live;
And I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
According to the faithful mercies shown to David.
Mainline traditions on the other hand add to the text, sometimes losing its way into idolatry.
2 A good, well built church was Macedonia.
you will notice no one touched Zechariah 14. Why do they not like to deal with it? because its a slam down Bible take down of preterists claims that all was fulfilled in Ad 70.
