One more thing before I rush off.
Sola scriptura doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Just means that Scripture is sufficient for knowledge of salvation, infallible, and the supreme authority in matters of faith.
Laughing in your face.
In theory, that’s what it means.
But in practice, not so much.
And the “not so much” includes both cutting off current practice because “it’s not in Scripture” and disallowing things on Scripture because they’re “not for today.”
Huh, what a night.
Anyway, I finally have a chance to respond.
Beyond my original response which you found so insulting.
I agree that Sola Scriptura as you defined it is *largely* accurate.
Sufficient for [doctrinal] knowledge of Salvation, sure.
Infallible? Mostly: but in the sense that you have the passages in Proverbs which say back-to-back "answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes; answer not a fool according to his folly lest you become like him"...trying to interpret that literally leads atheists to chortle. I suggest that those two lines were a rhetorical device known as paradox. There are known issues with translation, e.g. the sculptures of Moses with horns because one of the bible translations got a word wrong (IIRC it was something like "glory" or "radiance" but got transcribed or translated as "horns".)
Contrary to Bart Ehrman, these are not faith-killers.
And, there are passages where St. Paul comes out and says, "Hey guys, I'm writing this, not the Lord; these other sentences, however, ARE the Big Guy Upstairs talking, so listen up!"
Quibbles, but minor, included for the sake of avoiding later nitpicks.
The big controversy (well, ok, two of them) on Sola Scriptura is:
1) Supreme Authority in matters of faith.
Catholics say, nope, no private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20); and this is consistent with the real-life development that some Protestant groups break down into smaller and smaller splinter groups over increasingly miniscule points of doctrine. You can find a humorous account of this kind of thing in Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon Days in the chapter "Protestant."
The Protestants tend to quote 1 John 2:27, implying as it were the priesthood of all believers; and of course the famous 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
A few points.
First I don't accept 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as relevant, nor as dispositive of the issue.
Why?
Because it says "all Scripture is inspired by God."
It DOES NOT say "Scripture is the only thing inspired by God, and will remain forever the only thing inspired by God."
Second, I find it odd that the Protestants don't even consider the possibility that 1 John 2:27 might be a *corporate* guarantee. (Looking at BibleHub, https://biblehub.com/text/1_john/2-27.htm, I find that the "you" in that verse is *plural 2nd person*...How that necessarily guarantees an *individual* anointing, I'm still not sure of.)
Then, there are instances, both in the life of Jesus, and elsewhere in the Gospels, and in the various epistles, where it is clearly implied or stated, that the revelations of the Holy Spirit to the church, are meant to be ongoing over time. This does not mean that the cross and the Resurrection are overthrown, or usurped; but that God intends for His church to fight Satan in this world; and for that, additional help, prayers, guidance, and instructions are forthcoming. ("I will not leave you orphans.") 2) If the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, why do so many Protestant churches deviate from it (e.g. divorce, gay marriage, ordination of women, women praying without their heads covered, rejecting the Biblical gifts of the Holy Spirit, all of which are explicitly covered in the New Testament)? For the Catholics -- one analogy would be that the Spirit is living and active, and many of the "empty rituals" were once living and active, and the Spirit has moved on. They are still imbued with Spiritual power for those who engage in them in faith (and, in some cases, may retain "cleanliness" and power to ward off Satan anyway); but many people do them as "vain repetitions". That does not however, imply that "vain repetitions" is all that they ever were. If one actually reads the writings of some of the Saints, it is striking how much they have in common even with the Pentecostals in their devotion to Christ and waiting for and obeying the rhema of the Holy Spirit. And the signs and miracles following.
And a great many of the doctrines taken for granted by Protestants, were hashed out with blood, sweat, tears, and fervent prayers, over centuries, by the Catholic Church. To say nothing of saving the West from Islam. Not just the Crusades: the Muslims almost overran *VIENNA* (you know, cultured central Europe, the home of countless composers and artists and such)...long after Shakespeare, after Luther, and less that 100 years before the Constitution was signed. They were saved by a Catholic Prince from Poland, Jon Sobieski.
That being said, it is odd that one of my favorite pieces of music is a progressive rock album entitled Sola Scriptura, on the life of Martin Luther (it even trashes the 1400s-1500s Popes explicitly). Here's the song about Luther and the Wittenburg Door:
The Door, Live (warning: blistering guitar solo).
But the most applicable song for *this* thread, is this ballad:
(no title, but I think it's called "Make Us One")
I think that the best Scripture of all, is Romans 14. ("Welcome the one whose faith is weak, but not for quarrels...and he will stand, for God is able to make him stand." It is a call for mutual forbearance and humility. Good night. :-)