Maybe this will explain part of what I'm trying to say better:
If someone walked up to you and wished to learn about your religion, would you hand him a Bible and say read this? And then if he came back later with questions, would you say, 'read some more'? Ad infinitum..?
I think the answer is of course, "No."
So teaching and direction is done, is necessary is a requirement. "Sola Scriptura" is a misnomer, not practiced in it's literal sense.
Would you agree?
I wouldn't agree because that isn't how Sola Scriptura is defined. Take the Reformers. They wrote books. They preached. They taught. And they formulated the phrase.
Sola Scriptura doesn't negate teaching.
Now, if someone walked up to me and I had no way of having further contact with them, I might hand them a Bible and say read this. I might say start with John or Romans. Because faith comes by hearing and hearing through the Word of God. The Holy Spirit illumines our minds and hearts to His Word. The Word itself is sufficient. Teaching is helpful.
So teaching and direction is done, is necessary is a requirement. "Sola Scriptura" is a misnomer, not practiced in it's literal sense.
Would you agree?
= = = =
No. I forcefully disagree.
And I gave TWO DIFFERENT SPHERES OF NOT JUST EXAMPLES BUT HOLY SPIRIT AFFIRMED PROOFS above.
None of which has been responded to in anything close to a congruent civil dialogue sort of way.
So teaching and direction is done, is necessary is a requirement. "Sola Scriptura" is a misnomer, not practiced in it's literal sense.
Would you agree?
= = = =
THE REASON there's been no reply--much less a thoughtful, reasoned, logical, Biblical reply . . .
Is illustrated in Scripture . . .
. . . . I only know that once I was blind, but now I see.
YES AND AMEN!
The promises of God are yes and amen! II Cor 1:20
Mangling it to
The promises of our denominational hierarchy are haggled over endlessly . . .
Just doesn't have the same ring to it . . . and far from the same results.
No, I also would not agree. As you know, "Sola Scriptura" means only "Scripture alone". Using the plain meaning of the words, and in a vacuum, it is meaningless. It doesn't say anything. A meaning must be ascribed to it. I contrast this to another doctrine, that of "once saved always saved". Here, using the plain meaning, and in a vacuum, there IS meaning. Here, the clear implication is that once a person is saved, he can go out and do whatever he wants with the rest of his life and still be saved. Scripture clearly teaches against that, so Sola Scriptura says that it is bad doctrine, in this context.
The point is that there is no "literal sense" of Sola Scriptura the way there is with OSAS. Therefore, to criticize it you should at least take the meaning of it that is used by those who follow it. The way we users define it says that teaching is fine, including oral teaching.
I have seen criticisms of the doctrine saying that Sola Scriptura means everything from "Sola Scriptura does not allow teaching" to "if it's not in the Bible it isn't true" to "every word in the Bible must be taken only in its most literal sense", etc. All of these are false, and all of them sprung from two simple words that, when they sit there by themselves, don't mean anything. I hope you would agree that it isn't fair for non-followers to take the two words, define them as they wish, and then heap criticism upon their own made-up definitions, all the while accusing us of believing in it. We adherents to Sola Scriptura know what it means, and it is none of those things. :)