[D-fendr]

You probably realize this, but I thought it worth posting the jist of the argument.

Canon or not, the problem of sola scriptura stands, transcending the scripture itself. From the articles:

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. According to “solo” Scriptura, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there are human interpreters.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Yes, appeals to scripture are always appeals to interpretation, but not all scriptures are equally dark. Some are clearer than others (which is why on some others there is broad agreement, and why the Catholic Church can ask Protestants to prove Catholicism by the bible).

On the issue of sola scriptura I'm on your side. I continue to maintain that careless arguments like the author's is one reason so few Protestants will even consider the possibility of an ancient authoritative interpretive tradition.

[anathemized]

“All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.The only real question is: whose interpretation?”

This seems self-evident to me. I do not see the problem.

I believe salvation is granted to individuals by hearing and believing the gospel message.

The final authority over the meaning of the Scripture is, of course, the Lord.

If one believes the gospel, he is saved.

If one believes a false gospel, he is damned.

Due diligence of the individual is expected.