Some Protestants are arguing that the arguments that we use against sola scriptura does not apply to their position. They say that our arguments only work against solo scriptura, not sola scriptura. They argue that are a middle ground between our scripture and tradition and solo scriptura.
Solo scriptura is the scripture alone, but sola scriptura is scripture alone but it can be reinforced from tradition. But this middle ground is no middle ground at alone. At essence, there really is no really no difference between sola scriptura and solo scripture.
Sola scriptura and solo scriptura both say that doctrine must be solely supported in scripture. The sola scripturists say that evidence in tradition can be used to reinforce one’s position. But why? If the doctrine can be solely supported from scripture that evidence from tradition is not really needed. And if doctrine cannot be solely supported from scripture than no amount of evidence from tradition will be convince, from the viewpoint of sola scriptura. So for sola scriptura, no amount of evidence from tradition is needed if a doctrine can be proven by the Bible alone, and no amount of evidence of tradition is convincing if it cannot be proven from the Bible alone.
Let’s take a particular doctrine. Let’s call it Dogma A. Lets consider several scenarios:
Dogma A is taught in the Bible
+ Dogma A is taught in tradition
-------------------------------
Dogma A is true
Dogma A is taught in the Bible
+ Dogma A is not taught in tradition
-------------------------------
Dogma A is true
Dogma A is not taught in the Bible
+ Dogma A is not taught in tradition
-------------------------------
Dogma A is false
Dogma A is not taught in the Bible
+ Dogma A is taught in tradition
-------------------------------
Dogma A is false
This is how I see that a sola scripturist would look at these scenarios. No matter whether Dogma A is taught or not taught in tradition, Dogma A must be taught in scripture. So, when it comes down to it, the appeal to tradition by sola scripturists is nothing more than window dressing. No matter how strong it is taught in tradition, the doctrine is false if it is not taught in the Bible. And if is not taught at all in tradition, but is taught in the Bible, then the doctrine is true. Tradition does not matter at all in determining whether a doctrine is true or not. All that matters is whether the doctrine is in the Bible
So, when it comes down to it, there is no difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. They both say that the doctrine must be in the Bible alone. The sola scripturists give the appearance that tradition means something to them. But in reality, it plays no part in determining doctrine.
Solo scriptura is the scripture alone, but sola scriptura is scripture alone but it can be reinforced from tradition. But this middle ground is no middle ground at alone. At essence, there really is no really no difference between sola scriptura and solo scripture.
Sola scriptura and solo scriptura both say that doctrine must be solely supported in scripture. The sola scripturists say that evidence in tradition can be used to reinforce one’s position. But why? If the doctrine can be solely supported from scripture that evidence from tradition is not really needed. And if doctrine cannot be solely supported from scripture than no amount of evidence from tradition will be convince, from the viewpoint of sola scriptura. So for sola scriptura, no amount of evidence from tradition is needed if a doctrine can be proven by the Bible alone, and no amount of evidence of tradition is convincing if it cannot be proven from the Bible alone.
Let’s take a particular doctrine. Let’s call it Dogma A. Lets consider several scenarios:
Dogma A is taught in the Bible
+ Dogma A is taught in tradition
-------------------------------
Dogma A is true
Dogma A is taught in the Bible
+ Dogma A is not taught in tradition
-------------------------------
Dogma A is true
Dogma A is not taught in the Bible
+ Dogma A is not taught in tradition
-------------------------------
Dogma A is false
Dogma A is not taught in the Bible
+ Dogma A is taught in tradition
-------------------------------
Dogma A is false
This is how I see that a sola scripturist would look at these scenarios. No matter whether Dogma A is taught or not taught in tradition, Dogma A must be taught in scripture. So, when it comes down to it, the appeal to tradition by sola scripturists is nothing more than window dressing. No matter how strong it is taught in tradition, the doctrine is false if it is not taught in the Bible. And if is not taught at all in tradition, but is taught in the Bible, then the doctrine is true. Tradition does not matter at all in determining whether a doctrine is true or not. All that matters is whether the doctrine is in the Bible
So, when it comes down to it, there is no difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. They both say that the doctrine must be in the Bible alone. The sola scripturists give the appearance that tradition means something to them. But in reality, it plays no part in determining doctrine.
