Perhaps the title could be rephrased, but I don't know a better way to explain my question except in terms of what I've learned in Math and Computer Science. Sometime back I watched some videos from an Orthodox catechism course. During the first lesson of the course, the participants were asked to accept the authority of the church. All subsequent lessons would be based on the participants having accepted the authority of the church to interpret scripture etc for them. I encountered a Protestant sect. They have some unique positions on some biblical issues. What struck me most was that they too claimed that their leadership were the only ones allowed to interpret scripture. What really got me is that instead of making the authority of their leadership the first issue presented to potential members on the first day of their study course, the sect waited till the last day to bring this issue up. Am I fussing over petty things? Because it seems dishonest for people to approach me on the street or elsewhere and tell me "the bible says X" when we've not agreed on a framework for biblical interpretation.

I have counted over 200 prayers by believers (though not being thorough in Psalms) but find none addressed to anyone else in Heaven but God, or exhortations to do so. While support for this is attempted via appeals such as exhortations to pray for each other, and elders and angels offering incense before the climatic judgments on earth, and to tradition, yet I am looking for prayers in the Bible actually addressed, formally or implicitly, to created beings in Heaven, or instructions to do so like as "our Father who art in Heaven."

The question is above. The term Sola Scriptura: Belief that Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures. The Adherents are generally speaking Reformed Protestants/Evangelicals --- Please note, This is not directed at those who believe in **solo** scriptura: The Belief that Scripture is the sole basis and authority in the life of the Christian. Tradition is useless and misleading, and creeds and confessions are the result of man-made traditions.

Within Protestantism there is no universal definition of theology or how to understand the Bible: Anglicans have one definition, Lutherans another, Calvinists another, (insert name here), etc. So **upon what basis** can Protestants insist that some teaching contradicts the Bible objectively, and not only according to their own personal understanding of the Bible (which most would admit could be wrong)? And if all you have is your personal interpretation, upon what basis does anyone call anything a heresy, and those who hold it "heretics"? One has to be surer than 'I interpret it this way' in order to start condemning contrary interpretations with any note of seriousness. ----------------------- I've heard a lot responses things like 'His sheep hear His voice,' which in the first place is able to be claimed by two contradictory sides of a matter and not be falsifiable (it essentially is saying 'well, God knows who's right, and I think it's me!'), and secondly, circularly assumes that 'His sheep hear His voice' is to be interpreted specifically in a way which means that it pertains to the interpretation of the Bible. Similar are claims of having the 'personal guidance of the Holy Spirit,' which is similar or identical to the argument above. But again, this, while helpful to someone personally, doesn't provide a basis for say, calling others heretics based on that interpretation. Something that the New Testament says is possible. Worst of all, I've even heard things like 'I don't even interpret the Bible,' ('I skip the stage where I have to account for my interpretation objectively altogether') which is impressive ... in a bad way. None of these are impressive to me, and they do not withstand the most basic scrutiny. Can any Protestant provide a sola scriptura epistemology which *doesn't* rely on such dubious, unfalsifiable arguments?

This question is inspired by part of an answer given to a recent question : > It is God alone who has created the canon, our human responsibility is only to recognise it, which we have done better and worse through history. If someone seeking the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and diligently studying the Bible arrived at the conclusion that, say, Song of Solomon, or Esther, or James, was not inspired, would it be possible for that person to accept Sola Scriptura AND accept a 65 book canon? Why or why not? *** This question is seeking the perspective of those who believe in Sola Scriptura, and I'm primarily interested in the answer to the 2nd part of the question (why or why not?)

## Background The Hebrew bible and New Testament make numerous references to the concept of marriage (Exodus 21:10; Genesis 2:24) and even include stories involving weddings such as the famous Wedding at Cana . The NT also includes numerous commands for married couples such as Ephesians 5:22-33. However neither the Hebrew bible nor NT define what is involved in getting married, or what constitutes a wedding. In contrast, Jewish laws of *kiddushin* describe three ways a marriage can occur: sexual intercourse, a legal document, or the exchange of money . ## Question How have Protestants as *Sola Scriptura* proponents defined the boundaries of acceptable weddings without a corresponding biblical definition? Do they rely wholly on the state? How do they define when a couple is religiously considered married?

I believe that after years of church going, one knows enough. Action is therefore key. Love and serve others as you would the Lord. That is my current stance. To me (protestant), pastors are historians. Once you know the ebbs and flows of the Bible, all the rest is reminding. Which is a good thing. Nonetheless, it is not enough, one must act. Love and serve. Am I wrong? I do value church, but I have Church. So, is there a point where going to church to learn is enough? I am guessing that church is more of a community of people striving for the same ideal. Refining oneself to love and serve better others as one would the Lord.

As a Catholic, I'm often baffled by other Christians who base their faith purely off personal interpretation of the Bible as the be-all-end-all proof for everything under the sun (which is what I mean by Sola Scriptura). I understand the need to figure out what's going on in the bible and the need to live your life according to wisdom of the prophets and saints and especially heed the words of Jesus. But where did the idea come from that everyone can interpret the bible for themselves? Is this just a common Catholic prejudice or a misunderstanding?

To clarify what I mean by *private revelations*, I'm referring to revelations by God through extra-biblical means, such as prophecies, dreams, and visions. Is the Westminster Confession's doctrine of *Sola Scriptura* incompatible with a continuationist view on private revelations? Some appear to think that the two are incompatible. For example, [Mike Riccardi writing at The Cripple Gate](https://thecripplegate.com/strange-fire-the-puritan-commitment-to-sola-scriptura-steve-lawson/) affirms: > Think of a magnificent, ancient temple and a foundation upon which everything rests. That’s *sola Scriptura*. Everything that we believe, obey, embrace, and hold dear in the convictions of our soul is based upon this foundation of *sola Scriptura*. Rome said, “We accept Scripture, but it is Scripture *and*. Scripture *and* church tradition; Scripture *and* ecclesiastical hierarchies; Scripture *and* the church councils; Scripture *and* papal authority. And the Reformers said, coming back to the Bible, “No, it is *sola Scriptura*: Scripture alone.” And if anything else is added to the foundation of the church, there will be cracks in the foundation and it will not hold up the teaching and the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. **At the same time, they said no to the Anabaptists and the libertines who wanted to add their dreams and visions and new revelations. They said no; it is Scripture *alone***. > > ... > > And what I want you to note is in [WCF] chapter 1 section 1, **they begin with a statement on the cessation of any new revelation. They were determined to state that they will believe only the Bible**. So please note, in the first section of chapter 1, they saw it necessary for the preserving and propagating of truth that would make the Holy Scripture to be most necessary. In other words, it has to be written down, so the message would be preserved and propagated far and wide with a uniformity of statement. > > **“Those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being *now ceased*.”** This is front-loaded at the very outset. No wiggle room. These Puritan divines who gathered perhaps the greatest generation of believers in the UK, began with this cessationist statement. > > ... > > In the sixth section [WCF 1.6], we read of its sufficiency. **“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life is in Scripture.” No need to look anywhere else. No need to have anything else added. No appendices needed**. They affirm the Scriptures that I have already read to you, that all things necessary for salvation and sanctification, for the glory of God is found in our Bible. In this sixth section also is another cessationist statement: **“Nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.”** Do not be bringing your “Thus says the Lord” into this house if it’s not found in chapter and verse. > > ... > > Number 10 [WCF 1.10] is a final summation of the authority of the Scripture. “The supreme judge by which all controversies are to be determined and…examined…can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” **Not speaking in your revelations, in your dreams and visions, in your tongues. Speaking in the Scripture *alone*.** And the Word of God will be the highest arbitrator in all matters in the life of the church. > > ... > > ### Sola Scriptura: Deluded by the Quakers > > Whenever God opens the windows of heaven to bless his people, the devil opens the gates of hell to blast. While the Puritans were meeting in Westminster in the 1640s, at exactly that same time virtually across town, the devil was doing his work. There arose a fringe group that would come to be known as the Quakers, also known as the Religious Society of Friends. **They claimed to be receiving new revelations, prophecies. And with that they were being led astray into hyper-emotionalism and mysticism**. > > ... > > And out of this commitment to be “open and uncautious” to **continuing revelation by the Spirit, they were led into all kinds of mystical experiences and bizarre patterns**, not the least of which was going naked as a sign. > > He was the person al chaplain to Oliver Cromwell. John Owen Addressed Parliament. This brilliant man gave himself to **combat this Charismatic emotional departure from *sola Scriptura* with its new revelations**. And Owen affirmed the deeper issue, which was *sola Scriptura*. --- I got the inspiration to ask this question from: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101344/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101366/61679

I am seeking answers on the basis of Protestant Trinitarianism. ----- As referenced in a previous answer regarding *Sola Scriptura* , Steven Lawson quotes Martin Luther, in a specialised article on *Sola Scriptura*, and explains the force of Luther's words : >*Unless I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by clear reason, for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves, I am bound by the Scriptures that I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot to do otherwise. Here I stand, God help me.* > >By this declaration, Luther testified that the Bible is the sole authority upon which he stood. He asserted the Scripture is a higher authority than church traditions, ecclesiastical councils, or even the pope himself. For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church had espoused the authority of the Scripture and these other things. But Luther rebutted this position and declared that Scripture alone has the right to rule in the church. By this fearless posture, he established and embodied Sola Scriptura. > >*Martin Luther and Sola Scriptura* by Steven J Lawson April 2018 But I have noticed that some appear to suggest that *Sola Scriptura* would deny any kind of personal and spiritual experience of the Gospel, leaving one to merely assimilate the words of scriptural doctrine, appropriate them to oneself and assume that this was all one could expect of Christian faith : an intellectual apprehension of biblical knowledge. My own understanding of *Sola Scriptura* is that all Gospel doctrine and all matters of Church Government and all authoritative guidance of personal behaviour have already been revealed, through the words of Jesus Christ and his own chosen Apostles, in Holy Spirit inspired and inerrantly recorded words of scripture, which is not to be added to by claims of "personal revelation". Nevertheless it is also true, as Hart the hymnist wrote, that: >True religion's more than notion, something must be known and felt. ... words which inspired a book to be written *More than Notion* (with a foreword by Dr. Martin LLoyd-Jones) urging Christians not to be content with a profession of words and intellectual assent, but to seek the real experience of salvation, through the Gospel. One example in point is that of Abel who, it is said, "received witness that he was righteous", Hebrews 11:4. He, being justified by faith, understood that future redemption was by means of the sacrificial example of God (coats of skins) which, demonstrated example, Abel then followed. There was *the receiving of a witness* that he was justified. It was not a mere assenting that, since justification existed, therefore by intellectually accepting that fact, he would have, automatically, obtained it. Am I incorrect in my understanding that *Sola Scriptura* does *not imply* that I should be bereft of personal spiritual experience? For it is my own understanding that *every Gospel doctrine* is to be entered into by experience and not merely to be assented to, in the intellect. >The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power [1 Corinthians 4:20 KJV]

Several sects place a high premium on personal spiritual experience and/or personal revelation as a means for discovering Truth. For example: angelic visitations, miracles, dreams, visions, LDS's "burning in the bosom". Others (likely *Sola Scriptura* believers in particular) would say that these experiences can be demonic in origin and are not trustworthy. In particular, they might argue that common beliefs of such sects are untrue and dangerous because they contradict Scripture (e.g. a Christian confronted by an alleged supernatural experience of a Muslim would likely assert said experience to be demonic in nature on the basis of Scripture contradicting the Qur'an). **What *Scripture passages* exist (if any) in support of the idea that "spiritual" experiences can be misleading?** Relatedly, which verses speak to the necessity of reading Scripture rather than relying entirely on spiritual experiences and/or private revelation?

What was Martin Luther's explanation of *Sola Scriptura* in his writings? And did he use *Sola Scripura* by name?

Chapter I, Article IV of the Westminster Confession (1647) reads: >The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. This is very similar to Article I in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978): >WE AFFIRM that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. > >WE DENY that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source. But nowhere does Scripture define its own composition. Would not some extra-Biblical source or sources have to be credited here as a relevant "testimony of man or Church" upon which the authority of Scripture itself must somehow depend? Such sources would include Church Fathers, Church councils, consensus within one's denomination or branch, trust in the Bible publisher(s), or, at the very least, personal belief or intuition. Is this a valid point? Has it ever been addressed by those who hold to the Westminster Confession? If so, how is it addressed?

While the concept may have existed far prior, a recent discussion has left me wondering - What is the earliest documented usage of the term "Sola Scriptura" in Christian writings. I am not interested in articulation of the concept, but instead of the first documented usage of this specific and actual phrase in reference to the doctrine (not just coincidental usage) - so please be sure to include a quote in your answer.

Morning! I have a question about churches and baptisms. My partner and I are marrying in a Catholic Church. For background, I was raised by agnostic/ atheist parents, and my partner was raised non-religious. Despite this, I attended a Catholic school for 12 years and in my adolescence became Christian. I am practicing, truly believe, pray a lot throughout my day, and read the Bible daily, (not that this makes me any more Christian than people who practice differently) and try to live out my Christian values. I have wanted to be baptised for a few years now, but was unsure about the process. As my partner and I are both not yet baptised, we are going to be baptised together, and at least one of us needs to be baptised Catholic for the church to baptise us. I consider myself a Catholic, though I do have some beliefs that aren’t mainstream in the church. I was trying to ask our priest about this but I didn’t really get a clear answer, I think just because of the language barrier and him not understanding my long questions with messy words. In short, I believe that salvation is a gift and it is through faith alone, not works, that we are saved. I still try to live with Christian values, as I think Christian’s should - but believe that we can’t earn the gift, and that salvation was given by grace through Christ dying for our sins and rising from the dead. I am also quite Sola Scriptura, though I do place value in the word of Christians, especially those in positions of power who have studied a lot, but believe that they are human and open to correction, i.e. that humans are not infallible even if in relation to the church, as they are human, though guided by The Heavenly Father. I know that these two views are not mainstream in Catholicism, but I don’t think I particularly align ALL values with any other church that I know of either, but know I need to be baptised into the Christian faith through a church, so I feel somewhat at peace doing it thorough Catholicism, as I know about the religion. As a side note I think a lot of people are possibly cross-denominational despite belonging to a church community as these different types of church didn’t exist back in the day. For a while now I’ve been praying about what to do in this situation, to be baptised Catholic, despite some beliefs not aligning with all Catholics or not, especially as I know I am urged to raise my children in the faith if I’m baptised in it. Every day I seem to read a verse, even multiple, about the Holy Spirit that I didn’t open to read deliberately! But a lot of the verses have been talking about being at peace and the gifts that will come from the Holy Spirit, making me think that I’m being taught that it doesn’t matter through what church I’m baptised as long as I do become baptised a Christian. Anyway, to the question, I’m very scared of making The Heavenly Father unhappy by being baptised through a church that doesn’t believe everything I believe and truly think is the truth. Can I still be a Catholic and have slightly differing views on those two subjects? Does it matter what type of Christian church I’m baptised through if at the end of the day what I’m being baptised is Christian?

The Scripture mentions homosexual practises a lot but Scripture seems silent about transsexualism. This question is asking answers from a Protestant perspective preferably those who uphold the doctrine of Sola Scriptura of the Reformation. How do Protestant Christians explain gender dysphoria/transgenderism?

In chapter 24.1 of his authoritative book on the fourth century Arian Controversy - The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - Bishop RPC Hanson discusses how the various parties in that controversy used the Bible to defend their positions. He concludes with an overview of the approach to Scripture of these parties. Tradition --------- Concerning tradition, Hanson notes: > “There is some truth in [the] assertion” that “Arians clung blindly > and woodenly to **Scripture** whereas the pro-Nicenes were ready to accept > Scripture within the context of **tradition** and a broad philosophical > outlook” (RH, 827). This comment reveals something about Hanson’s own hermeneutical preferences. As a bishop in the Church of Ireland, he condones reading Scripture “within the context of tradition.” But, to cling to Scripture as the only basis for doctrine, he rejects as a blind and wooden approach to Scripture. If we then remove Hanson’s own hermeneutical preferences from the comment above, we see that the Arians clung to Scripture while the pro-Nicenes were ready to accept Scripture within the context of tradition. Hanson explains why the pro-Nicenes appealed to tradition: > “The pro-Nicenes were always a little apprehensive of entering the > ground of Scripture in encounter with the Ariansm ‘because … their > language tended to support the archaising theology of the Arian'. The > pro-Nicenes were in consequence much readier to appeal to tradition.” > (RH, 847) He also explains what "tradition" means in this context: > "The pro-Nicenes did indeed appeal to 'the tradition of the Fathers', > very often meaning the creed N [the Nicene Creed]” (RH, 828) The pro-Nicene were unable to appeal to ‘tradition’ earlier than the Nicene Creed because the controversy was essentially about the words ousia, homoousios, and hypostasis in the Nicene Creed and, as Hanson states, these were “**new** terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy” (846) and, therefore, not supported by earlier ‘tradition’. Sola Scriptura -------------- While the pro-Nicenes appealed to ‘tradition’, the Arians insisted on Scripture as the only norm of faith. For example: > “The pro-Nicenes often remark on the invariable demand of the Arians > for Scriptural proof, and how they accuse the champions of Nicaea of > introducing the non-Scriptural term homoousios into the creed!” (RH, > 827) > > “'We do not call the Holy Spirit God' says an Arian writer, 'because > the Bible does not say so, but subservient to God the Father and > obedient in all things to the commands of the Son as the Son is to the > Father.” (RH, 830) > > Maximinius - a famous later ‘Arian’, “is more explicit: 'the divine > Scripture does not fare badly in our teaching so that it has to > receive improvement from us.” (RH, 831) But the pro-Nicenes also at least attempted to find their theology in the Bible: > “The pro-Nicene writers are equally insistent upon the unique > position of Scripture as a norm of faith.” (RH, 827) > > “A number of passages from pro-Nicene writers can be produced which > make them seem as devout observers of the text of the Bible as any > Arian. … Earnest but futile attempts are made to prove that the Bible > really does use the word ousia or substantia.” (RH, 829) > > “The pro-Nicenes are at their worst, their most grotesque, when they > try to show that the **new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy** of > the day were really to be found in Scripture. The Greek speakers > cannot pretend that ousia appears in either Septuagint or New > Testament, but they rack the Bible to find examples of hypostasis, and > when they find it do their best to make the context appear relevant.” > (846) Hanson concludes: > “The best that can be said for this kind of juggling is that it showed > the almost desperate desire of the theologians to base their doctrine > on Scripture.” (847) > > The pro-Nicenes attempted “to read their doctrine into the Bible by > hook or by crook” (848). So, both sides in the Controversy accepted the principle of sola scriptura. Hanson explains: > “In this matter they were of course only reproducing the > presuppositions of all Christians before them, of the writers of the > New Testament itself, of the tradition of Jewish rabbinic piety and > scholarship.” (849) Sola scriptura, therefore, is one of the principles which all sides of the Controversy inherited and accepted. The difference was that the pro-Nicenes were less successful in showing that their doctrine is Biblical. The Problem ----------- Hanson explains what the pro-Nicenes did wrong. He refers to both sides of the Controversy when he says: > “The impression made on a student of the period [Hanson himself] that > the expounders of the text of the Bible are incompetent and > ill-prepared to expound it.” (RH, 848) > > “It was … the presuppositions with which they approached the Biblical > text that clouded their perceptions.” (RH, 849) > > “It was … the tendency to treat the Bible … apart from … the > 'oracular' concept of the nature of the Bible.” (RH, 849) > > ”The very reverence with which they honoured the Bible as a sacred > book stood in the way of their understanding it.” (RH, 849) The Solution ------------ Hanson also offers a solution: > “The defenders of the creed of Nicaea … were themselves engaged in > forming dogma … pro-Nicenes recognized that in forming their doctrine > of God they **could not possibly confine themselves to the words of > Scripture**, because the debate was about the meaning of the Bible, and > any attempt to answer this problem in purely Scriptural terms > inevitably leaves still unanswered the question 'But what does the > Bible mean?'” (848) > > “If the long and involved dispute > resulted in leading figures like Athanasius to some extent **standing > back from the Bible** and asking what was its intention, its drift (or > skopos), instead of plunging into a discussion of its details based on > an imperfect understanding of them, this was a gain and not an > unworthy attempt to **evade [avoid, dodge] the strict meaning of > Scripture**.” (849) Partisanship ----------------- This analysis of the arguments from Scripture during the fourth century Arian Controversy may surprise many readers. Hanson begins chapter 24 by saying that, thus far in the book, he had refused to take sides. He is hesitant to take sides because “the subject of the Arian controversy has suffered from a great deal too much partisanship [bias] at the hands of those who have written about it” (page 824). Hanson states that the “conventional account of the Controversy ... is … a complete travesty.” He concludes: “The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack can today be completely ignored” (page 95). This is confirmed by the 2001 book by Archbishop Rowan Williams (Arius, Heresy & Tradition). It shows, due to new information about the fourth-century Arian Controversy that has become readily available during the 20th century, that the latest books on this subject paint a very different picture of that Controversy. The Question ------------ Following the principles mentioned above, I propose that Christian doctrines may be categorized as follows: > (1) Doctrines that explain the Bible using the Bible’s own words; > > (2) Doctrines that use non-Biblical words to describe things stated by > the Bible; > > (3) Doctrines that say things that are not in the Bible but that do > not necessarily contradict the Bible; and > > (4) Doctrines that contradict the Bible. I would assume that scholars would be able to significantly improve on my proposed categories, but if we accept these four, my question is twofold: > (a) Which of these categories of doctrines would be allowed by the > Protestant principle of sola scriptura? > > (b) Given the analysis above of the role of Scripture on the > development of the Trinity doctrine, to which category should we > allocate the Nicene Creed? And, consequently, would the Nicene Creed be acceptable within the > principle of sola Scriptura? See here for a copy of chapter v24.1 of Hanson's book.

Sola Scriptura can be broken into two parts: 1. Sola - Alone 2. Scriptura - The sacred Scriptures One aspect of Sola Scriptura is the idea that Scripture is the *Sole* **Infallible AND Authoritative** rule of faith over Christians. But in relation to [my last post](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89214/how-do-proponents-of-sola-scriptura-defend-the-doctrine-without-scripture-being) , there is a question over the canon of scripture. Since no book that anyone would consider scripture (at least among protestants that would claim Sola Scriptura) *never* says what scripture is, who determines what scripture is? Or, as I point out in my [blog post](https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/5957239847810915194/4590423893995530597) : >This poses a two horned dilemma. Horn 1 - The source that canonized the Bible is not infallible and authoritative, thus we could add any books to the Bible and no one would have a basis to reject these additions (this is obviously bad). Horn 2 - The source that canonized the Bible is infallible and authoritative, thus Sola Scriptura is false. So whatever horn you take, you will end up with consequences. So to close on my question, what source has given us the canon of scripture (not scripture, since that has come from God), and is that source infallible or authoritative?

As a Protestant who really tries to abide by the *sola scriptura* principle to subject my understanding of God, His works, and His relation to us under the accepted Protestant canon, I am bewildered on how to choose the "correct" interpretation of key Bible verses relating to competing understanding of key doctrines necessary for my "walk in the spirit" such as Trinity, dual nature of Christ, Original Sin, baptism, justification, union with Christ, sacrament, spiritual gifts, etc. There seems to be many legitimate options, leading to several Protestant theologies on offer, all of which adopt *sola scriptura* : Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Pentecostal, etc. but each theology seems to be evolving. While a particular theology can then gives me *a responsible interpretation* that leads into a certain position I can then adopt of baptism, sacrament, etc, and while *sola scriptura* correctly subjects these theologies under scriptural authority, **there remains the problem of choosing which theology to use for an individual Christian**. Some key doctrines like the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ seem to require me to trust in the judgment of early councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon to favor one particular interpretation of Bible verses related to God and Jesus. While Kenneth Collins and Jerry Walls in their book [Roman *but Not* Catholic](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801098939/) offers a way for *sola scriptura* proponents to coherently accept the *binding authority* of those early councils (because nearly all Christians accept them), **there remains the problem of choosing post Reformation councils / confession document to trust**. Should I go with a Reformed church which adopts Westminster Confession of Faith, or with an Anglican church which adopts the 39 articles, or with a Lutheran church which adopts the Augsburg Confession, or with a Methodist church which adopts the United Methodist Confession of Faith? In [an answer to a related question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/72162/10672) we read (emphasis mine): > *Sola scriptura* says there is no guarantee that any doctrine of the church is certain; the only mark of divine certainty is on the scriptures. So our relationship to the scriptures is one of **an ongoing project of investigation** guided by the spirit's insights. As God guides us we may collectively decide that some things which were believed in the past, although they do not directly contradict the scriptures, are weaker exegetically and have unfortunate theological implications compared to alternative interpretations. And **just as we have a measure of skepticism towards earlier generations' traditions and interpretations, so future generations will judge that some of our interpretations and theological theories are unjustifiable as God continues to guide them**. It seems to me that at the end of the day, as a *sola scriptura* believer I only have myself to rely on, combined with: - the assistance of Holy Spirit in my heart, - the binding authority of those early ecumenical councils - several peers that I trust, that they're engaged in the same project as myself, to collaboratively understand God and his scriptures under the Spirit's guidance With the above guidance, **am I then free to choose a theologian I trust** and enlist him/her as one of my peers to help me in my "project of investigation" to choose a responsible interpretation of key Bible verses by reading his/her commentary / book and knowing as much as I can about his/her life as a Christian, and THEN use that guidance to select a church to attend? Is that the correct procedure? It still sounds lonely to me, or do the followers of those "peer theologians" (such as CS Lewis) count as a collective so my position is not solitary? Is this the best that *sola scriptura* can offer, and that means I have to keep a lingering doubt in the back of my mind about my currently chosen position on doctrines that the Protestant churches have differences on? It feels like standing on shifting tectonic plates waiting for an earthquake to happen. So the complete question is: **How do proponents of *Sola Scriptura* choose the "correct" interpretation of key Bible verses to adopt for one's faith life when many responsible exegesis in different faith traditions lead to different interpretations?** ### Real life significance of this question As a Christian we can speculate all day long and thus risk "living in an ivory tower", but the rubber really meets the road when that Christian is married to a spouse that holds the same *sola scriptura* position and but are unable to come to an agreement because they do their own "project of investigation", enlist different "peers" and then strongly decide to go to a different church of a different tradition. For example, one wants to go to a Pentecostal church (with "memorial" understanding of eucharist and double adult baptism, the 2nd one for filling), but the other wants to go to an Anglican church (with "means of grace" understanding of eucharist and infant baptism). Not only about church attendance, how are they supposed to baptize their children? I have seen in some couples that this happens and this became an element in their divorce. Are we supposed to consider this as a **defect** in both of their faiths? In this situation, should a couple who are persuaded to different faith traditions (each claim to have Holy Spirit backing) subject themselves to *sola scriptura* and attempt a compromise? What does this compromise look like since the couple cannot appeal to the Holy Spirit anymore for common ground? Ideally the couple should be "peers" to each other, but what if they cannot even agree on a single external "peer" to include in their "project of investigation"? A high profile real life example of a compromise is that of Prof. Francis Beckwith who [resigned as President of the Evangelical Theological Society](https://www.etsjets.org/announcements/frank_beckwith_resigns) to avoid a conflict of interest because he wanted to return to the Catholic Church. He has been "Catholic friendly" but the catalyst was when his nephew asked if he could be his sponsor when he receives the sacrament of Confirmation, which requires the sponsor to have a good standing in the Catholic Church. (read the full story [here](https://baptistnews.com/article/baylorprofessorbecomescatholicresignsasheadofevangelicalgroup/)) . He was baptized Catholic, but apparently joined his wife's Presbyterian church after marriage. Subsequent to his returning to the Catholic Church, his wife underwent RCIA to become Catholic as well.

As a follow-up to my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89378/50422 , I would like to know now about the implications that the doctrine of [*Sola Scriptura*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura) might or might not have over one's position in the debate between [Cessationism & Continuationism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_continuationism) . Does *Sola Scriptura* entail Cessationism? (And if so, to what extent?) Is it possible to believe that the Bible is *"the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice"* and be simultaneously open to extra-biblical divine means of revelation and guidance such as: - dreams & visions ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83049/50422)) , - prophetic revelations ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87277/50422)) , - words of knowledge ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80327/50422)) , - receiving instructions from the Holy Spirit ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80658/50422)) , - angelic visitations ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86115/50422)) , - Christophanies ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83590/50422)) , - Theophanies ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86465/50422)) , - miracles ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86098/50422)) , - etc.?