A couple of points of history - Rhamiel asserted that Sola Scriptura is a major deal in PROTESTANTISM - I would like to point out that Wesleyanism with its "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" as a Guide rather than SOLA SCRIPTURA is the "guide" for a sizeable chunk of Protestantism.
And that the Quadrilateral itself was adopted from the Anglican view of "Scripture, Reason, and Tradition" - Wesley simply split off EXPERIENCE from REASON as a separate component - whereas Anglicans such as HOOKER felt that experience was a PART of Reason.
"Upon examination of Wesley's work, Outler theorized that Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions.[5]
Scripture
Wesley insisted that scripture is the first authority and contains the only measure whereby all other truth is tested. It was delivered by authors who were divinely inspired. It is a rule sufficient of itself. It neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition. The scripture references to justification by faith as the gateway to scriptural holiness are well known to true Wesleyans: Deut. 30:6; Ps. 130:8; Ezek. 36:25, 29; Matt. 5:48; 22:37; Luke 1:69; John 17:20-23; Rom. 8:3-4; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 3:14; 5:25-27; I Thess. 5:23; Titus 2:11-14; I John 3:8; 4:17.
Tradition
Wesley wrote that it is generally supposed that traditional evidence is weakened by length of time, as it must necessarily pass through so many hands in a continued succession of ages. Although other evidence is perhaps stronger, he insisted: "Do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind, and in its degree".[6] Wesley states that those of strong and clear understanding should be aware of its full force. For him it supplies a link through 1,700 years of history with Jesus and the apostles. The witness to justification and sanctification is an unbroken chain drawing us into fellowship with those who have finished the race, fought the fight, and who now reign with God in his glory and might.
Reason
Although scripture is sufficient unto itself and is the foundation of true religion. Wesley wrote: "Now, of what excellent use is reason, if we would either understand ourselves, or explain to others, those living oracles".[7] He states quite clearly that without reason we cannot understand the essential truths of Scripture. Reason, however, is not a mere human invention. It must be assisted by the Holy Spirit if we are to understand the mysteries of God. With regard to justification by faith and sanctification Wesley said that although reason cannot produce faith, when impartial reason speaks we can understand the new birth, inward holiness, and outward holiness. Although reason cannot produce faith, it can shorten the leap.
Experience
Apart from scripture, experience is the strongest proof of Christianity. "What the scriptures promise, I enjoy".[8] Again, Wesley insisted that we cannot have reasonable assurance of something unless we have experienced it personally. John Wesley was assured of both justification and sanctification because he had experienced them in his own life. What Christianity promised (considered as a doctrine) was accomplished in his soul. Furthermore, Christianity (considered as an inward principle) is the completion of all those promises. Although traditional proof is complex, experience is simple: "One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see." Although tradition establishes the evidence a long way off, experience makes it present to all persons. As for the proof of justification and sanctification Wesley states that Christianity is an experience of holiness and happiness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit, a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life." -
Wikipedia
The first line under Scripture in bold, is indeed Sola Scriptura. Nice try though to separate Protestants on a commonly shared evangelical doctrine.
I notice there is a "Scripture, Reason, and Tradition" Forum here at CF for Anglicans and "Old Catholics" - I don't know what "Old Catholic" is - but have gone to Episcopal churches and read Hooker and came to see his view not very different from Wesley, as said, Wesley just split Reason and Experience as two components, pairing them with Scripture and Tradition.
Both the Scriptures and Christ are self-attesting, however reason is a necessary component for any interpretation, and I hold that God the Holy Spirit, in the process which is an experience, reasons with the elect in the process illuminating and guiding into truth. Contrary to what some might believe, unregenerate people, the "natural man", can only gain so much knowledge, because Scripture is also "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). So the unregenerate neither receive the gracious blessing of experiencing illumination in the process (Romans 8:7).
I submit that TRADITION is a part of one's viewpoint whether one thinks it is or not -
I agree there is a difference between Sola Scriptura (as historically defined), and SOLO Scriptura (a strawman which some mistakenly believe, new converts especially prone to the "lone wolf" approach).
for even the CANON of your SCRIPTURE is determined by the Tradition you are in -
I would argue the canon is self-attesting and established by the Church, the communities of Christians under guidance of the Holy Spirit, before councils ever made official statements.
and it is a sheer fact of Christian History that the Protestants with their view of "66 books" have the NEWEST and SMALLEST set of Scripture, when compared with the historic churches of Catholicism and Orthodox with a capital "O".
Obviously the above would be YOUR presuppositions speaking for you.
There are plenty of People in Christendom who "believe in Free Will" and their belief in free will has no connection with Arminius.
The connection is in the Arminian teaching of Predestination where God foresees the "free will" choices and elects based on them. Arminius actually died a Calvinist preacher, that is publicly, but it is for his private teachings that he is famous for.
The "free will" debate became an issue of priority because of Palagius, and Augustine maintained both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, just as the overwhelming majority of Calvinists have historically even. Further, free will is too broad, without further explanation, Palagius held to a libertarian free will, while Augustine held a compatibilist free will.
"Sola Scriptura" and AN ABSENCE OF FREE WILL may be Luther and Calvin's deal, but they do not speak for Orthodox, Catholics,
One only need to read John Calvin to understand how off base and misled your opinion "absence of free will" is.
Augustine's doctrine of "free will
"As to the Fathers, (if their authority weighs with us,) they have the term constantly in their mouths; but they, at the same time, declare what extent of meaning they attach to it. In particular, Augustine hesitates not to call the will a slave. In another passages he is offended with those who deny free will; but his chief reason for this is explained when he says, "Only lest any one should presume so to deny freedom of will, from a desire to excuse sin." It is certain he elsewhere admits, that without the Spirit the will of man is not free, inasmuch as it is subject to lusts which chain and master it. And again, that nature began to want liberty the moment the will was vanquished by the revolt into which it fell. Again, that man, by making a bad use of free will, lost both himself and his will. Again, that free will having been made a captive, can do nothing in the way of righteousness. Again, that no will is free which has not been made so by divine grace. Again, that the righteousness of God is not fulfilled when the law orders, and man acts, as it were, by his own strength, but when the Spirit assists, and the will (not the free will of man, but the will freed by God) obeys. He briefly states the ground of all these observations, when he says, that man at his creation received a great degree of free will, but lost it by sinning. In another place, after showing that free will is established by grace, he strongly inveighs against those who arrogate any thing to themselves without grace. His words are, "How much soever miserable men presume to plume themselves on free will before they are made free, or on their strength after they are made free, they do not consider that, in the very expression, free will, liberty is implied. 'Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty,' (2 Cor. 3: 17.) If, therefore, they are the servants of sin, why do they boast of free will? He who has been vanquished is the servant of him who vanquished him. But if men have been made free, why do they boast of it as of their own work? Are they so free that they are unwilling to be the servants of Him who has said, 'Without me ye can do nothing'?" (John 15: 5.)
In another passage he even seems to ridicule the word, when he says, "That the will is indeed free, but not freed - free of righteousness, but enslaved to sin." The same idea he elsewhere repeats and explains, when he says, "That man is not free from righteousness save by the choice of his will, and is not made free from sin save by the grace of the Saviour." Declaring that the freedom of man is nothing else than emancipation or manumission from righteousness, he seems to jest at the emptiness of the name. If any one, then, chooses to make use of this terms without attaching any bad meaning to it, he shall not be troubled by me on that account; but as it cannot be retained without very great danger, I think the abolition of it would be of great advantage to the Church. I am unwilling to use it myself; and others if they will take my advice, will do well to abstain from it."
John Calvin, Institutes Book II Chapter 2
"...
we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined." -
John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70
A closing thought, the will of man is either a slave to sin, or a slave to Christ, a slave to Satan, or a slave to the Triune God of Christianity. Anything in between is the vain speculation of pagan philosophers.
