“Where do you get the idea that the Holy Spirit opened a window of Apostolic influence and guidance with the Catholic Church just long enough to permanently establish Scripture in the compilation of the works you call the bible? Is that Scripturally supported?”
So, the Catholic Church established the authority of the Holy Scriptures? No wonder that the Higher Critical method of Biblical interpretation has received welcome in Roman Catholic academic circles. It is little different than the hermeneutic you are suggesting. In either case, man stands over the Scriptures and tells God what he will or will not accept as truth.
No, I will stick with the self-authentication the Holy Scriptures accord themselves. They purport to be the very word of God given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures of the New Testament plainly claim to be the successor and indeed the record of the fulfillment of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. That is the plain, simple reading of the Gospels and Epistles. It is in complete accord with the teaching of Christ on this point, as it is on every point of doctrine.
If you will not listen to Christ, listen to Peter: “And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; KNOWING THIS FIRST, THAT NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:91-21) Don’t tell me what the Roman church says this means, that is to say, don’t give me its private (or in more contemporary language: personal, individual)* interpretation. For an interpretation to be non-private, non-individual, non-personal, i.e., the product of man’s judgment, it must be God’s own interpretation. In other words, Scripture interprets Scripture. The Author always knows, remembers, and keeps His own word. Was you go beyond this you do nothing more than engage in what is known in our day as deconstruction.
The teaching of SOLA SCRIPTURA, which is the very thing Peter is plainly saying in the citation above, stands against every attempt to deconstruct the Holy Scriptures and interpret them according to any other agenda than their own agenda, the Author’s agenda, which is SOLA GRATIA, SOLA FIDE, and, above all, SOLUS CHRISTUS. This is why Romanists continually, and unsuccessfully, attack this teaching the Holy Scriptures. Roman Catholic dogma, to use your terminology, will fail in many, many points when subjected to the judgment of Scripture alone. You know it and I know it. And thus you twist and turn and yet cannot escape what I said in reply #139.
Just read and understand what 2 Peter 1:19-21 plainly, clearly says.
* If you really want to get into the Greek text of this, we can do that. But you will not find any help there.
Precisely, through Apostolic Tradition, unless you believe that Scripture was handed to man in stone tablet form directly from the burning bush. Sola Scriptura is an invention of, by, and for men who sought to deny Apostolic Tradition for personal gain.
2 Peter 1:19-21 teaches sola scriptura? It’s amazing to me how two people can read the same verse and reach different conclusions.
Beyond that, what do you (or anyone else) think more accurately defines the central notion of sola scriptura?
Private interpretation, or a rule of law that settles all dispute?
I mean really, you really don’t believe that inherrent to the very nature of sola scriptura is one’s own private interpretation? You really don’t believe if you “read the Bible for yourself”, there is never any danger of twisting it “to your own destruction”, via an “unlearned” approach?
I love your posts!! Bless you for getting at the heart of the matter and standing firm for the Gospel.