And yet it is a logical outcome of individual interpretation. XeniaST (i.e. Uri) has interpreted the bible individually and out of the context of Holy Tradition and has arrived at his conclusion and will label this as sola scriptura.
How it is the logical outcome when it isn't for other 'individual interpretations'. Anecdotal evidence. 'Individual interpretation' guided the Reformers as well, do they deny the Trinity? Of course not.
will label this as sola scriptura.
He may and you might as well, but part of 'Sola Scriptura' is the recognition that the Scriptures are the last w(W)ord in deciding/defining doctrine and resolving disputes. I obviously disagree with him on this issue.
Were all doctrines of the Catholic Church decided by unanimity in Councils? If not, why not? You have Scripture and tradition.
And UriÂ’el would be correct. In fact, UriÂ’el is quite correct.
If the Father required a Roman Catholic sense of the Trinity, it would be very specifically laid out in the Scriptures. It is *not*. The exact makeup of the Godhead is an unfathomable mystery.
UriÂ’el has taken nothing away from the Scriptures, nor has he added to it. He speaks the Gospel of the Risen Lord.