Henry said:
BrianB said:
Besides that, you're understanding of sola Scriptura is highly flawed. Nothing in sola Scriptura says we cannot make use of extra-biblical information to help us understand how to interpret the text.


Sorry, but no. This looks like this is going to be our biggest bone of contention. Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone. Period.

If you are wanting to get pedantic, the historical-grammatical hermeneutic does of course take into consideration information not strictly contained in the words of Scripture, in the form of historical background and other things which the author/original readers would have understood, in order to make a proper interpretation of the text. Such as, understanding Palestinian geography when we read the Gospels.

But this is simply seeking to understand Scripture as purely as we can, keeping in mind the author's intent, etc. On the other hand, we are flatly denying the authority and sufficiency of Scripture when we allow wordly Science to tell us that everything we've believed about the Bible all along is wrong. (Before the 19th century, we had no reason to doubt the literalness of the Genesis account.) If I am wrong in this, please prove it to me, don't just dismiss me as close minded.

Scripture alone does not mean Scripture by itself.
Anymore than the analogy of faith using the eye:
faith only saves just as an eye only sees.
but faith alone doesn't save anymore than an eye alone on a table sees, both are part of a greater required matrix.

I've seen this idea of Scripture referred to as Solo Scriptura and the problem of the canon is crucial for this misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. For the table of contents of our Bible is not itself part of Scripture but is understand with reference to things outside of Scripture, like church history.