Sola Scriptura is not a theologically tenable position

My Rebuttals The Kingdom of God You are clearly taking Luke 17:20-21 out of context, and it's not even helping your argument. That passage is about Jesus telling the pharisees, who asked him when the kingdom of God will come, that the kingdom of God is not the physical and political kingdom that they were expecting, but a spiritual one. Now you want to use it (out of context) to help your argument by implying that Sola Scripturists are doing the same thing because we adhere to a physical book instead of the spiritual reality. That is not what this text is about and as I have demonstrated, Jesus, the apostles, and the early church always appealed to the authority of the written Word of God. Jesus rebuked the pharisees NOT because they religiously adhered to the written word of God, He rebuked them because they "made void the word of God by their traditions that they passed down"Mark 7:13 What's ironic though is that the Roman Catholic Church is the one who are acting like the modern day pharisees. The Church has built an empire, with the Pope assuming the title of infallible King of the World, who hold the keys of heaven and earth. Jesus Defying the OT Law Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." You claimed, just like the pharisees did, that Jesus broke the OT laws. As we can see in this passage and through out the whole NT, esp in the book of Hebrews, that Jesus did not abolish the law but as matter fact FULFILLED the law. Jesus is the true Sabbath, and He claimed that in Him there is rest. He is the fulfillment of the sabattical law! Hallelujah! Calvin on 1 Corinthians 4:6 What are you talking about here? Calvin comments: "The clause above what is written may be explained in two ways — either as referring to Paul’s writings, or to the proofs from Scripture which he has brought forward.As this, however, is a matter of small moment, my readers may be left at liberty to take whichever they may prefer." When Calvin said that it was "a matter of small moment" He meant that what Paul was referring to in the passage could either be His worn writings or Scriptures that Paul presented. The meaning of the passage is the same. Here's Calvin's comment on the meaning of the passage:"But what does he wish them to learn? That no one be puffed up for his own teacher against another, that is, that they be not lifted up with pride on account of their teachers, and do not abuse their names for the purpose of forming parties, and rending the Church asunder. Observe, too, that pride or haughtiness is the cause and commencement of all contentions, when every one, assuming to himself more than he is entitled to do, is eager to have others in subjection to him. Again, the point of the passage is "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." Can't get any clearer than that. Who is the source of Scriptures Do we really need to get in to this? I did not contradict my self when I said that the early church held on to the writings of the apostles. The apostles are NOT the source of their own writings, just as Moses is not the source of the Law. Are you actually claiming that what the apostles wrote came from their own human wisdom? 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 And I, when I came to you, brothers,did not come proclaiming to you the testimonyof God with lofty speech or wisdom.For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling,and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. Traditions Sola Scriptura is not against traditions. Sola Scriptura is against man-made traditions that are not founded on Scripture, or even worse contradictory to Scripture, like a lot of Rome's traditions. Sola Scriptura is also not against having a God appointed teacher or leader who studies the Word to shepherd the flock. Protestants do not just meet up and have a book club. Sola Scriptura is simply the stance that in this post-apostolic time, what we have are the verified, canonical, inscripturated word of God as our ultimate point of reference. Closing As I close, I also want to point out that all the Roman Catholic Church traditions have been established and canonized by putting them in writing. How ironic is it that they are against the concept of Sola Scriptura, yet they found it necessary to put all their traditions down as a point of reference. I would also like to point out that the early church did not have ANY of these Roman Catholic canons. Let me ask you the same question you asked me, did they not get the full experience then? I only have 7 minutes left so ill just close by copying in and pasting this from www.Christiananswers.net Rather, these men had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. Irenaeus and Tertullian rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer affirms this fact: "For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is." The Bible was the ultimate authority for the Church of theEarly Church. It was materially sufficient, and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth. As J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out: "The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further,it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis". [1] [1] http://www.christiananswers.net...