[ealgeone]

The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. This is true however does not support the notion of sola scriptura. The reason the "true followers of God recognize(d) what is and is not inspired", back in the early church days when the Canon was being decided, was because when they all got together to "compare notes" so to speak (or really as we call them the ecumenical councils) they realized there were many texts that many churches who had little or no contact with each other were using in their liturgies. That is, in their celebrations of the Eucharist. So it wasn't the Bible itself or even a great debating society that decided what was Scripture, it was the Holy Mass. The very act of worship of God himself produced Scripture. And by the way, contrary to popular thought, the Jews didn't have a formal canon either until well after Christ died and rose again. So it's not like that "Scripture" existed either before the Church. This is just historical fact. It's not as if they all got together, had a debate about this book or that, and that was the only deciding factor. As if it was a game of favorites or something. No, the very fact that without any human based reason, for a mysterious reason, they discovered they all valued the same texts (for the most part, there was some debate of course). So really, in every sense, the reason we have the Canon we have today is because of the Church, acting like a Church (a body, a collection of local churches acting as one). Not as a group of men deciding on texts because they "sound good" or "agree with other Scripture". This was not the primary reason they were all used independently of each other. The primary reason was that the Holy Spirit guided each local church to use the Scriptures we know today in the liturgy, which is for worship of God, not a Bible study. So in this sense, the Church "gave us Scripture". And this is, again, in history.

The Jews did have the "canon" of the OT. In the NT the "writings" refer to the Law of Moses, Prophets and the Writings. If not mistaken this is what Jesus was quoting from when He said, "it is written"....

There are ample writings on how the NT came to be the canon we have today. The "roman catholic" church did not give us the NT. It was around long before the RCC.

If we're not relying on the Bible as written by the writers moved by the Holy Spirit, what are we relying upon?

False, conflicting, man-made opinions?

When people say sola scriptura, we mean we are relying on the Bible for correction, teaching, reproof, instruction, etc.

[FourtySeven]

The Jews did have the "canon" of the OT. In the NT the "writings" refer to the Law of Moses, Prophets and the Writings. If not mistaken this is what Jesus was quoting from when He said, "it is written"....

While the Jews obviously had Scriptures, there were differences among them as to which books were and were not Scripture. That's what I was saying. Obviously the ones Jesus and the apostles quoted from were all ones they all considered Scripture, but there were other books that were questionable for them, depending on the sect in question.

If we're not relying on the Bible as written by the writers moved by the Holy Spirit, what are we relying upon?

False, conflicting, man-made opinions?

You see this is a common mistake amongst many critics of the Church. It's not as if we don't rely on Scripture as a source of knowledge and truth, we just don't rely on it *alone*.

When people say sola scriptura, we mean we are relying on the Bible for correction, teaching, reproof, instruction, etc.

I'm well aware of the formal definition of "sola scriptura" (which you have left out by the way, the alleged "value" sola scriptura adherents place on the teaching authority of the "church" and also tradition.) Many, even some on this board, beat Catholics over the head with that formal definition, when we say, correctly, you can't possibly know everything Jesus taught by only reading the Bible, when Scripture itself says you can't. But here's the thing...

In PRACTICE, sola scriptura, for all it's vaunted value it allegedly places on tradition and authoritative teaching, eventually reduces to "show me that in the Bible, or else it's not true" (which is really, "show me that in the Bible, and if what you show doesn't agree with my *opinion* of what it says, then it's not true") which is precisely NOT what sola scriptura adherents claim they believe. But it is certainly what it IS, in practice.

Just have the courage to look at your own self, in action, in your own experience, with a desire for truth and not to be "right", to see evidence of what I have just said about sola scriptura.