[TradicalRC]

Sorry. My ‘assertion’ about sola was more like the arguments put forth. As far as I know, sola scriptura translates to scripture alone. But noticing that there are five so-called ‘solas’, they therefore do NOT stand alone. Hence the weird semantic arguments like “sola does not mean solo”, it means something else. Whatever, sorry about the mystification.

[Mad Dawg]

I think as good a statement as any of what "Sola Scriptura" means is found in the Articles of Religion of the Church of England, to wit:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

I agree that Sola Scriptura, strictly interpreted, appears to be epistemologically impossible.