My point is that on this central matter of Christian faith there are multiple, often opposite views, held by groups that claim the bible is their sole authority.
The mere existence of multiple viewpoints doesn't mean they all have the same merits.
Sola scriptura is unbiblical and it doesn't work.
It's "unbiblical" because people are capable of misinterpreting scripture? How do you even define "biblical" with this kind of logic?
If people who tout Sola Ekklesia fall into theological error does that make that element of their thought wrong, or their thinking "unbiblical"? Of course not! The
form and
content of their reasoning must be assessed on a case by case basis given the topics and their respective conclusions. Merely saying "there must be some of you falling into error because look, there's disagreement" is absurd logic because it does nothing to establish whether or not
you are in error yourself, and
how we know what is and isn't erroneous.
In Reformed Christianity there is general agreement on several theological issues, with clear exceptions that shouldn't be singled out to judge the whole. Unrepresentative cherry picking of this kind can be quite intellectually dishonest.
In order for Sola Ekklesia to be validated, it has to be
demonstrated how the Teaching Magisterium is
efficacious to rightly divide the word. Within debates contrasting Sola Ekklesia and Sola Scriptura the former has no epistemological grounds as some kind of unquestionable, default state of reasoning. Both viewpoints have the impetus to show their respective merits.
What's the primary reason I am more in favor of Sola Scriptura? Because it is part of a tradition that emphasizes critical, academically informed methods of appraisal which are part of a force that has revived a constant concern for peering into history to see what we can of how people in biblical periods thought, lived, and expressed themselves. It has revived language studies and it is not so complacent, so self assured that it will accept as authoritative translations of scripture that demonstrate clear methodological errors (yes, I'm referring to the Latin Vulgate of Jerome),
for over a thousand years. It is expressive of the Christian concept of humility inasmuch as it allows self doubt into the picture and properly recognizes that we are creatures.
It has been my experience that Sola Ekklesia involves constantly characterizing the Church Fathers in a new light, changing ever so slightly in shade over time with new theological developments because the very rightness, the self assurance of the Teaching Magisterium's dogma is so assertively presupposed that history simply
has to agree with it. People weren't even allowed to read the scriptures themselves so they were kept in a dead language for centuries.
What's my main problem with Sola Ekklesia, though? It is presented in a literally unfalsifiable manner. From my perspective that kind of reasoning is the very height of presumption.
