Cassian, greetings. I don't think I have conversed with you before, though who knows with the many screen names out there. I debated long and hard with one Arch (Archbishop) on the subforum of BibleAndTheology.org on this, over a year ago.
You posted: "A sola scripturist begins with a bare text, that is devoid of any previous meaning, then attempts to deduce from it what he thinks it means, disallowing what it has always meant from the beginning."
Now dear Cassian, instead of accusing you of creating a straw man, I will just ask you to prove that a sola scripturist does not consider context and the analogy of the faith (the whole council of God in the Bible in interpreting a particular verse), or to retract.
You claimed: "Your quote of II Pet 1:20 tells you that sola scriptura is false."
Let us not talk past each other. In debating with me (I just jumped in, splash!) debate vs my POV, not what you think sola scriptura means. My POV is that only the 66 books of the Bible are the only thing readily available to men in general, which comprise the Word of God. I do not claim that there is no Word of God anywhere else. For example, many oral prophesies were made and not recorded. In Heaven, there must be a huge amount of conversation within the Trinity and between God and angels, and between God and men in Heaven. That is all the word of God, but not readily available to men in general.
Now is it common ground between you and me that the 66 books are the Word of God? If so, then I don't need to prove that they are the Word of God to you (though such is self-evident). The recognition that the Scripture is God's Word was not invented by Calvin. The Lord Jesus recognized what was written at His time and denounced human tradition.
Now to refute my POV, your task is to bring forth anything else and prove it is God's Word. Since the time that the NT was finished, no one has successfully added one page to the Bible, despite claims of prophecy here and there.
I agree with the rejection of new innovations, as you say: "new innovations are NOT from the Holy Spirit." Indeed, all the papal bulls (and traditions) are not from the Holy Spirit, neither the writings of so-called Church Fathers, nor any additions at the Council of Trent.
Now remember: You task is to bring forth any other writing whatsoever and prove it is God's Word. If you can't do that, we are left just with the Bible as God's Word.
First I am not Roman Catholic, so some of your assumptions are going to be false.
Scripture is but the written portion of God's revelation to man. The Apostles were not instructed to write a manual, a theological treatise then hand out printed copies of what you have called the Bible(scripture). The Apostles taught that revelation orally. They established that Gospel and the practices that supplement that Gospel. Nothing was written for at least 20 years, then only Paul's letters and they were distributed, but not all Churches ever received every single one eventually. Now, Paul, did not write Corinthians without the Corinthians knowing what He was talking about. He had lived with them, taught them for three years what the gospel meant. He tells Timothy specifically to guard both Tradition and epistle. There was no intent to write out as a full composition of the Gospel and explanations of how everything was practiced. They did it. The Church did not have the texts collated (Canonized) until the 4th century. It is absolutely absurd to think that they either needed to wait until the end of the first century to get all the writings before they might know what Gos's revelation was, what it meant, and what to practice. Then for the next 300 years no Canonization yet. It ONLY came about because the Gnostics were claiming the same knowledge in their writings. So the Church Caononized what we have.
To dismiss the Church Fathers is to dismiss what scripture means. They were not interpreting it, they were taught the Gospel from the Church, previous generations. What they wrote was all approved by the Body. this is why some are declared false because they strayed from the Truth. As long as the Body accepted what they wrote as the True gospel they were accepted. It is how Tradition is passed down. It is NOT passed down by individual men, nor has any single man imposed his beliefs upon that Gospel over the last 2000 years. What was beleived and practiced in the first century is exactly the same today. Several concepts as the Trinity was tested agains false teachings and the Council uses the Rule of faith to determine the correct meaning, not from scripture itself, but what it had always meant. Even a Council does not have last authority, it is the Body of Christ that is infallible, the Holy Spirit working in and through Christ's Body.
If this was the sola scriptura era, Arius and his opponents to this day would still be arguing who can through their best scriptural arguments, text upon text, just like the sola scripturist do today, totally ignoring that Scripture has had a singular meaning from the beginning. And ignoring parts to establish their own theory.
The Holy Spirit was to protect that gospell. Christ prayed that the Gospel would remain One as He is one with the Father. It has been preserved as He promised, no man has yet changed that unified Gospel, not destroyed the Body of Christ. Of course, if that happened it would mean Christ Himself does not exist, since He is the Head over His own Body.
The Gospel was entrusted to the Body, the Apostles set the foundation, but the Body is the pillar and ground of that Truth. Which simply means Christ is Head, and the Holy Spirit works in and through the Body enlivening it. The Gospel was never entrusted to an individual, neither was the text, called the Bible given to man to abuse, to impose their personal authority over it.
The results are clearly manifest over the last 500 years. The chaos, confusion, division made by man has virtually made scripture null and void. After the split in the 11th century the RCC also unilaterally made changes to the Tradition, thus adding to it, as well as reinterpreting scripture to create whole new doctrines out of whole cloth. However, their changes are minor compared to the thousands that exist in the sola scriptura milieu.
