That's actually one of my main problems with the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura. It can mean any of the things you list above, all of them or none of them.
Clarify. What generally are you looking for here?
Scripture existed before the church, and was the prophetic and doctrinal foundation for it, and "without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better," (Hebrews 7:7) thus the church cannot be superior to the class of revelation called Scripture. Though it would become an instrument of Holy Writ, yet even the instruments are not superior to what God brethed thru them, any more than Mary is superior to Christ (though some Caths exalt her as if she was at least equal) .
.
You are only dealing with the practicality of SS, not the status and sufficiency of Scripture. A multi-tool may be the single tool one needs in a camping trip, and the fact that only a small percent have one does not negate its status. The word of God itself is the supremely powerful word and sufficient to supply the Truth needed for faith, but unless there is a preacher then it is no more practical than SS is when there is little contact with Scripture.
They can somewhat vary, but not as meaning the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc., except as a carelessly expressed definition. And rather than "just me and my Bible" being what most believe, "Bible Christianity" abounds with in-depth study aids.
The alternative to SS Catholics claim exists, but which does not.
Golly, with terms like those I have to wonder how many takers you expect to receive. "I won't consider a single thing you say but go ahead and try to convince me anyway, it'll be lulzy : DDDDD"
They are ones claiming an alternative, that as the apostles orally preached the word of God, then so Rome does today, versus being restricted to Scripture being so. Thus my ?: What wholly inspired oral source has spoken to man the public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
And I repeat that your terms for this question are kind of absurd given that you've already admitted that no argument can be made to change your opinion.
Finally, an answer! So, you're saying that we know which of the ancient works is Apostolic because of the testimony of the body of believers who received them. Some books were the ones that they said "oh yeah, we've had that letter since Paul sent it to us", and of others they said "heck no, never seen that one before!" Yes, that's exactly how we know: not by what Scripture says, but by what the Church says!
You insist on mischaracterizing the question, even after being corrected. And you insist on assuming that the books you quote are Apostolic, without bothering to examine why you think that they are. Your position is truly irrational and without merit.
That is actually not true, for as said, being told a book is from someone simply does not necessarily mean it is wholly inspired of God, nor does lack of a know author necessarily mean it cannot be wholly inspired of God. And even being told some books were Scripture does not itself even mean they were, though it would narrow down the candidates, but Scripture provides for discerning what is of God.
No, but SS also provides for the "due use of ordinary means," as WC states, whereby one "may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" "things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation," which means should include dictionaries (esp. if Luther much relied on them. Stop taking "all things" out of context.
And as you must resort to a false concept of SS, therefore it is you who insists on mischaracterization. Repeatedly.
What is irrational and without merit is one who presumes he is being rational while either being blinded or lacking comprehension, or engaging in deliberate mischaracterization, and which includes your assertion here. I never said i assumed all that the books i quote from were written by apostles (authorship of Hebrews and which James being disputable), and the authorship of some is doubted by even RC scholars. Nor did I say or infer that i did not examine why I think that such are, and the reason for my certainty of the authorship of those I do hold as true is because inspired attribution, and the character of the writings.
Thing is though he's not wrong. You have repeatedly changed subjects, framed issues or employed circular reasoning articulating your points. This thread is ostensibly about a scriptural justification for (the man-made doctrine of) sola scriptura. And yet, there's been very little of that in general and, with respect, zero that I can think of from you.
As I've pointed out, before you can deal with the question "are the Apostolic works inspired by God" you have to deal with the question "what works are truly Apostolic". You've admitted that we can't know which works are Apostolic except by the the testimony of the Church.
The Westminster Confession says "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..." Are you saying that no one at the Westminster Assembly had any clue about the correct formulation of sola scriptura? Interesting.
Yes, that is but a small portion of the absurdities that are the result of the so-called "logic" of sola scriptura.
You've badly misquoted the Confession. What it actually says is"
Which bombast from a consistently hostile witness does not even warrant responding to aside from this.
Rather, your post is as a garbage truck, to wit:
Meaning "place Catholic blinders on" before reading anything."
Totally false, for as said and ignored, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, and by citing of which Christ defeated by the devil erroneous Jewish leadership, while as a body ("in all the Scriptures") He established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.)
SS does not need a list for as said and ignored, discernment and establishment of what is Scripture is Scriptural, and for as said and ignored, the sufficiency of SS is not restricted to what it formally provides.
Totally absurd and false actually nigh unto blasphemy! Scripture is the word and "the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)
The need not be all quoted, for the point is that a body of inspired writings were discerned and established as being so, as being "Scripture," even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, which thus supports the establishment of a canon under SS, which materially supports this.
Congruence is just one required quality, but the Scriptures have other qualities which set them apart, akin to how even the respective qualities of secular classics set them apart, though the word of God is in a class by itself. And I actually think that of the Deuteros Wisdom seems to be the best candidate for inclusion as canonical, though it was not penned by the author attributed to it or in his time, but it at least seems to teaches pre-existence of the soul, and also seems contrary to the claim that infants are defiled and need to be baptized:
As you serious? No wonder you disparage congruence, which your late gospel of Thomas is contrary to, as is Protoevangelium of James (which contradicts the former. Even your own church rejected both.
Which argument indicates you still argue the absurdity that dependence upon other things, from reason to historical judgements, is contrary to SS, and that agreement of some of the judgments of Rome means one must submit to all her judgments. I already showed you what this logic leads to.
Get over it. You have no church but for the scripture, which came first, and thus enabled more additions to the prior established body of it. Face it, and stop trying to make your church into an object of faith. She simply does not quality.
Sophistry again, for of course God comes before all, but the Lord Himself established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus the RC basis of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. And you have no valid apostolic succession since under the NT this requires having the same faith as is manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. But in which Catholic distinctives are not .
History?! To be deep in history is to realize Rome is a perversion of the NT church, and even Catholic scholarship, among that of others, provides testimony against your papal propaganda (which the EOs at least recognize as such).
It seems until now I was the only respondent who has repeatedly cited a major historical document on it, but since RCs refuse to accept it and instead foist their own tailored version, which I never argued for, then what good does articulation do, except to expose the sophistry of the likes of thyself.[/QUOTE]
Which is simply an admission by you that you insist on recourse to an absurd concept of SS which has it claiming "all things necessary for God own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life are expressly set down in Scripture," so that it must supply a table of contents, as well as reason and discernment, etc, versus the all the public express Divine revelation needed for the above being provided by Scripture, expressly or deduced, and with includes what it materially provides.
Yes, unlike your contrivance of it described above, they did understand the need for correct formulation of sola scriptura.
There are no misquotations but quotations that are contrary to your non-substantiated contrivance of SS. Which you continue to rely on.
DID YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT IT SAYS?! You are guilty of misrepresentation multiple counts:
Actually they have only refuted you here.
Rather, as explained, the claim is not that Scripture formally provides "all things," but in the context of express Divine revelation it provides for what is needed, which presupposes an established canon. But which establishment is supported by Scripture which testifies to the establishment of a body of wholly inspired writings.
I see, "argument failing here, pound pulpit," having resorted to sophistry your recourse is to ad hominem spit wads. Thanks for implicit the admission, but I understand the compelled nature of RC apologetic which must defend a self-proclaimed Pillar and Foundation of Truth, replacing the "word of Truth" with smoke and mirrors and forcing them to rely on Catholic understanding as a false teacher of distinctive beliefs not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
Finally, by continuing to cast aspersions on our intelligence as motivated to do, you only further testify to the weakness of your position, and the dishonorable nature of it.
Actually you have to answer that question. As I stated already the men who gathered the NT canon (Jesus already confirmed the OT canon in Luke 24:44-50) recognized the divine nature and authority of the texts as being Holy Spirit inspired and of apostolic origin.
Again your question to answer as I already did see above.
So they received the authority to identify the canon from the canon? Quite circular no?
Actually confirms it as what you left out of my previous comments were references to how John the Baptist, Jesus and His apostles confirmed their ministries, fulfilled prophecies and teachings with the Holy Scriptures. That is indeed the application of Sola Scriptura.
Which is the usual misconception on these boards reference Sola Scriptura:
Sola Scriptura is demonstrated by the prophets, Christ and His Apostles. The very reason the apostles recorded the sayings and teachings of Christ is because He is the Divine Logos the Word of God.
