Scott,
I see your claims and raise you one
.
There's another problem with
Sola Scriptura. It separates the Bible from Tradition in an effort to make it superior. I think this is, at least in part, the result of some of the schizo nature in Protestantism. While you know it, for the sake of others, the Bible was formed in the following stages (NT here):
1). The books were written.
2). People ascribed authority and importance to them, so they are handed down from one generation to the next (tradition here).
3). They then began to assemble some books together as more important to others, largely in response to heterodox ideas.
4). These assemblies were preserved and narrowed over time, and some books were rejected under the very same authority that had preserved them earlier (the
traditional POV on their authority and holiness).
5). Finally the final form of the NT came about, because the process of traditional emphasis and preservation eliminated all the other contenders.
6). These books are then traditionally considered important, and they are passed down from generation to generation. Why do we think they are holy and God's word? Because our predecessors told us to. It is
traditional.
As a result of this, those who hold
Sola Scriptura set themselves up in a position where if they separate the Bible and tradition, then Tradition is indisputably superior. Without it, there would be no Bible, but there could be Tradition without the Bible. Since the Bible depends on Tradition, while Tradition does not the Bible, then it can only turn out that way if we think about it.
This pressure is unresolvable from a Protestant perspective, and I think it is partially responsible for the extremeties in it. In the end,
Sola Scriptura destroys the authority of the Bible if we take it seriously.
