Say what you will about the Catholics or Orthodox...

Sola scriptura would be nice had the bible promoted it. The bible promotes scriptura, not sola scriptura.
Sola scriptura is a meta-scriptural tradition.

What isn't the basis for sola scriptura? There has to be something I imagine. What would the standard reference for this?

What is*

The holy bible.

Where does it support sola scriptura?

Mark 7:8-13. Keep in mind that sola scriptura is the doctrine that holy scripture is the whole of extraordinary divine revelation in the world today, that it is the highest epistemic authority, the rule of faith and life, that it is the standard against which inferior authorities are measured, and that it is fully sufficient for salvation and godliness. For a more thorough description of the doctrine, the following is the entire portion of the Westminster Confession on the topic

...

...

This says nothing about the Bible being the only source through which God had given us his teaching. Read the whole fragment with attention, instead of, as it seems to currently be, putting all your attention into one word, "tradition", and forgetting about all the rest. The meaning of this fragments is very clear, as Jesus explicitly explains it throughout the text - Christ is talking here about mere human traditions and customs being placed above the commandments of God, to the point where people are breaking Divone commandments for the sake of these mere human traditions.

Didn't I already define sola scriptura? It is not the idea that scripture is the only way to learn the truth of God, but that it is our only source of it. Preachers are part of God's ordinary means of teaching, but what they preach is only valid insofar as they actually represent what God spoke in scripture.
I did no such thing. Perhaps you should focus more on what the text says instead of trying to guess my interpretation and how I arrived at it. The point is not the word "tradition". The point is that the pharisees were filtering the scripture through their own centuries old traditions and interpreting it through that lens. Jesus protests that by forcing scripture into their framework they keep themselves from letting it speak for itself. Instead of following the clear words of scripture and rejecting the contradicting traditions, they told themselves their traditions are divine in origin, so the scripture must mean something else, since God does not contradict Himself. The problem was they arrogated the authority of divine revelation to their traditions, human tradition which is so easily corrupted, even organically. How can this be averted? There is but one way. We must be ever vigilant, constantly measuring our traditions against the word of God to see if they are approved. We cannot just assume our traditions are true and seek to harmonize scripture with them, otherwise we repeat the error of the pharisees.
Quite right. You are absolutely correct, and did not contradict my interpretation at all. You did, however, contradict Rome's claim to a divine apostolic tradition. The traditions of the pharisees are not called human because they lack divine origin, to the contrary, even proper divine traditions are human tradition. They are called human because by the nature of oral tradition they do not come immediately from the mouth of God, but mediately through the mouths of men. Romanists will often say their traditions are divine not human, on the grounds they were revealed by God to the apostles and passed down by the same to the bishops. But I ask, how then can you avoid nullifying the word of God for traditions of men, if you never question your traditions? If we grant Roman tradition is divine, what is to stop it from becoming human, when it is believed to be true by nature instead of derivatively?

Sola Scriptura effectively makes the personal interpretations of the individual the highest authority.

Unsurprisingly this has the potential to lead to as many denominations as men can imagine.

Where as when the Scripture is taken with Tradition we have something much more stable.

But that's a logical fallacy, just because something has been done the same way for the past X amount of time doesn't mean it's right. Bloodletting was considered a legitimate way to get rid of disease for centuries, does that mean we should go back to that as well?

There will always be bickering between denominations and sects, but ultimately, we're all in the same boat and need to focus more on external issues that are actively attempting to tear Christianity apart.

Attached: Tom.png (719x400, 312.3K)

Despite the refusal of papists to note it, we make a strict distinction between interpretation and the interpreted text. You'll never hear an actual Protestant saying that you can interpret the bible however you want. You are bound to interpret the bible the way it was intended. We agree it's unacceptable to incorrectly intepret the bible, what the papists find intolerable is that we correct it by the text. When you change your interpretation because of what an external authority says, unless it is because that authority convinced you your interpretation was incorrect, you aren't actually changing your interpretation, you're saying the bible is wrong. If you believe the bible says X, and you believe X is false, you're saying the bible is wrong, because even if the bible doesn't say X and X is false, to your mind the bible = X. The difference between Romanism and Protestantism is that Protestantism doesn't solve the problem of incorrect interpretation by throwing scripture in a fire, we solve it by doing as the noble Bereans, searching the scriptures night and day to see whether these things are true.

Sola scriptura is scripture alone is the rule of faith.
Sola fide is faith alone for salvation .
Alone.
Only.

Any other "definition" is irrelevant.

There is nowhere in the bible where it teaches sola scriptura.
It's a non biblical prot tradition.

Ok kiddo

Attached: [stares exegetically].jpg (350x350, 19.86K)

But what about for example the letters that are referenced by Paul but were never found, or the oral teachings of Jesus that maybe were not written down. That's what bothers me, maybe these things were lost forever and somehow kept through tradition, while the Bible was missing them.

Your personal definition is irrelevant. Sola Scriptura means scripture alone, apart from any tradition, or anything else. Sola is not "highest" or "greatest" it means "alone/only" in latin.

Dr White used the real definition of Sola Scriptura in a debate against a Catholic. The Catholic asked him where the bible teaches "sola scriptura", where does it teach that scripture is the "only rule of faith and practice" and White mumbled and stumbled around 2 Timothy 3:16 and couldn't find an actual answer, because that verse doesn't have the verse "only" or "alone". And basically lost that argument.

youtube.com/watch?v=RJskrQq3dXM

Epic! Protestantism btfo! You can go back to your Roman Catholic normiebook meme pages now

You have to ask yourself, has God failed? If we do not have every piece of revelation God intended for us, we have no grounds for any of it. It's no use to say, "maybe it was preserved in tradition", since it would be only the meaning saved, not the words. We would still have lost the words of God. But do not be disheartened, since we have lost nothing. It's not that the letters were never found, they were never copied. We've found countless copies of Paul's letters because everyone had the knowledge of their inspiration put on their heart just as Christians today do. If it was lost, it was because it was not the word of God. With the words of Christ, though it was indeed God speaking, it is the words recorded in the New Testament that are promised to be inspired and unperishing. Do not forget that He who spoke them on earth also ordered from heaven their writing. If God wanted us to have them, they would be in our bible.

So basically you couldn't think of a response to his claims

I'm gonna chim in here and explain that the word sola scriptura isn't a really good word to describe what we believe. It leads to confusion and causes people to think that it's bible only. A better term for it would be prima scriptura. Meaning the bible is the prime, ultimate and final authority in the Christian life. This means that we can have creeds, councils, traditions and even read the fathers, and yes protestants read the early church fathers, specifically the reformed sect, but they all must first confirm to scripture and cannot ad anything to it:

Thats not the argument here. Why are there so many definitions that claim this but have many fundamental differences. What is the explanation? Clearly only one is following the correct interpretation? Which is it?

Curious how this is reconciled to the fact that scripture was not the prime authority of Christ in the early church but authority was given by Christ to the apostles. Genuine question.

Denominations*

No that would be a bad thing because it opens a door for the pope. That's why 'sola scriptura' is used. It doesn't provide any crack for the pope to slip through

Yes it is. That's why papists will expressly claim that's what we believe all the time, and that's why user said "the personal interpretations of the individual". The purpose is to strawman sola scriptura
But there aren't. I cannot think of a single denomination that affirms sola scriptura that does not share the same fundamentals as the Protestant reformers (this does NOT include groups such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Gay Christian Movement, as these each attack sola scriptura with the same arguments as Rome and add additional authorities to scripture, whether they be prophets, publications of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, or reason/science/culture). The reason for the differences that do exist between those traditions is not a problem with scripture, but a problem with men. We come to scripture with our own prejudices and traditions, and are inclined to continue believing them, rationalizing our way around the teaching of scripture instead of correcting ourselves. Again, the solution is not to dismiss scripture altogether and place our faith in a monolithic human hierarchy instead, but to submit to scriptural teaching, and we will never submit to scripture so long as we seek to harmonize scripture with human tradition.
It is the one that actually interprets it as it was intended by the author.

I'll just leave this here.

Kate is an exemplar of why Paul would not suffer a woman to teach

This is false, by the way.

You're also wrong about this. The Church has always had splinter groups. They even exist within the eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic denominations, but there they are masked by an overarching bureaucracy (especially when it comes to the papists) that gives the illusion of unanimous assent to a singular body of doctrine.

What's with Zig Forums and this obsession of discussing tired strawmen/inacurate cliches over and over and over again by the way?

I cant imagine why a bunch of heretics would splinter 3000000 times a day into meaningless subgroups that have invalid mass at strip malls with literal grape juice and crackers.

...

What baffles me is that they put so much emphasis on the Bible being the sole source of authority and they never seem to notice that half the New Testament is Paul writing to various churches using his apostolic authority to correct their wrong teachings. The idea that there are authority figures with greater responsibility to spread correct teaching is right there in the Bible itself. Protestants in the first century would be one of those churches Paul was writing to who were snipping their dicks to be more like Jews or something like that.

ol' kate greenshoes casually comitting blasphemy against the holy spirit, good going kate