Sola Scriptura is not a theologically tenable position

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for engaging on this subject, which I think is an extremely important one for practicing Christians - but I would also like to humbly point out that none of the initial points posted were addressed. If you feel that we need to take a step back and start with some definitions, I will happily oblige, though I do wish for the points to eventually be accounted for as well. --------------- "I would like you to fist tell me what your view is of the Bible, what is it to you." A book could be written on this subject, but I will strive for brevity without sacrificing crucial points. Holy Scripture was assembled by the Church, and for the Church. Church in this context meaning The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (pre-Schism). It was written by various authors over the course of multiple centuries for the purpose given in John 20:30-31: "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." It was written so people would believe and be able to participate in salvation. It was collected and canonized for the same purpose, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.[1] -------------------- "And also what you speak of when you are referring to "traditions", surely you're not speaking of man made traditions, but please specify what you're referring to, and also provide a couple of examples" I am referring to the same thing alluded to by the word "logos" given in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, quoted in the first round of this debate. One example of this would be the doctrine of the Trinity, which is not explicitly referenced in Scripture (but which, of course, is alluded to quite often), another would be the intercession of Saints, which, while also being alluded to in Scripture, is nowhere made explicit. Now, I do not want to get into a side debate about the validity of these particular theological positions, my only wish is to show here that the key in both of these issues is *interpretation*. Any text as voluminous and dense as the Bible can be (and is) twisted to say just about anything a person wishes to say. When interpretation is left solely to the individual believer, and passages taken out of context for the sake of convenience, there will be as many denominations as there are people -- and this is rapidly coming to fruition now with the rise of non-denominationalism[2]. It is almost as if the purpose of the Reformation was not really a rejection of the pope, but a secret desire for everyone to be their own pope. There is a fundamental epistemological assumption at play here, namely that Truth is merely an abstract concept to be deduced through logic and reason. For atheists and empiricists, this takes place in the realm of the scientific method, for adherents of sola Scriptura, this takes place with Holy Scripture. What I propose is that Truth is not an abstract concept, but a living reality. Truth is something we can either (often vainly) attempt to orientate ourselves to here and now, or something we can tiptoe around and ignore. To this end, Holy Scripture can give us much assistance in direction, and provides many warning signs and practical insight into this "spiritual topography". But, without the wisdom that *attends* the words on the page, the words are simply words, and we will continue to see them merely as such. These texts were never meant to be divorced from their embodied wisdom in the form of the Saints whom have paved the way before us (and live alongside us), whose number only God knows. -------- Now, allow me to address the points you brought up: 1. The source and basis for ALL necessary knowledge regarding the Christian life. If Scripture is the *source* of all necessary knowledge regarding the Christian life, what then did the Christians of the first 4 centuries refer to for their knowledge regarding the Christian life? Do you take the position that they were missing out on the full picture? Were none of these early Christians able to participate in salvation merely because they happened to live their lives before the Synod of Hippo in 393? Or before the printing press, which was really the first time that everyone was in a position to own a personal copy of the Bible? And which canon do we accept as legitimate? The 66 books of the Protestants? The 73 books of the Catholics? The 76 of the Orthodox? The 81 of the Ethiopian Orthodox?[3] If your answer is the 66 books of the Protestants, would you be able to clearly explain why, and explain why the other versions are wrong? This is a much more complicated issue than it first appears. It is my position that Christianity is the source of Holy Scripture, not vice versa. 2. The ultimate authority regarding all necessary knowledge regarding the Christian life. I have already addressed this point, but to sum it up again: Where is this dictated in Scripture? Again, we have: 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" I see nowhere here anything about "ultimate authority", or "final word", not to mention the fact that this was obviously not even in reference to the NT. 3. Any teaching or doctrine is to be tested by the already verified canonical inscripturated Word of God. Now this, I can agree with, but with a caveat - namely that absence is not equivalent to purposeful omission. For an example, let us look at the Didache, an early Christian document dated to the same time as the Gospels, which gives instructions on baptism, the Eucharist, fasting, prayer, and church organization[4]. The Didache contains the earliest surviving explicit reference to the Eucharist and was widely known and respected in the early Christian world (at least among the Priests and Bishops). Some of the instructions in the Didache were also mentioned in the NT writings, some were not (at least, explicitly). I will summarize again, that Holy Scripture was assembled by the Church and for the Church. It was never meant to be dissected through analytical textual critiques by people who did not even follow the necessary praxis of a member of the Church. It is also a form of idolization, which carries the inherent of danger of mistaking the map for the territory in our quest to know and reunite with God. It presupposes unnecessarily a fundamental disconnect between God and His Creation, when it proclaims a piece of historical writing (important as it is) as our only hope for salvation. And, most worrying, it gives us a tendency to approach these Holy texts as a lawyer approaches a summons, while ignoring the Kingdom of Heaven which is in our own heart. Luke 17:20-21 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!' or ‘See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." [1]http://orthodoxwiki.org... [2]http://www.uab.edu... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org...