It is hard to see you as "merely" asking a question. You persistently misrepresent the doctrine of Sola Scriptura when you demand that I have a verse for everything I say. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not claim that the Bible answers each and every question on greek grammer, science, etc. Neither do I need to show a verse with a latin phrase (sola Scriptura) to make the claim that the doctrine of sola scriptura is biblical.
Your response is quite exaggerated.
I have said things explicitly to the contrary of your above characterization of me regarding viable sources of general Greek information which can be obtained outside the bible. When discussing what the Bible means by a particular Greek word, I weight the bible's USE of the word more than those outside of it.
If I choose to do things "solo" scriptura more than "sola scriptura" that's not a crime in a scripture forum ? correct ??
But if you wish to show something is biblical, then ( like I do ) -- I would recommend you show where it is in the bible, and in what particular way (nuance) you mean it.
"sola" scriptura sounds more like a lame excuse to start a fight by exaggeration and "misnomering", than a philosophically sound doctrine. So does arguing for or against infallibility, if you ask me.
The doctrine of sola scriptura does not deny the authority of the verbal messages of prophets and apostles. It denies that anyone infallibly and inerrant remembers them after the death of the last apostle.
Remembers what, the authority -- or the messages?
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
The book of Mark, for example, was not written by an apostle. He is not one of the twelve. ( Matthew 10:2-4, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13 ) Nor for that matter was Luke; for Luke is a historian who learned about Christ after Jesus died.
The Gospel of Mark, as far as I know, was written after Peter died, by a convert to Christianity that Peter taught. ( 1 Peter 5:13 )
Paul and Peter seemed to fight a bit, so perhaps it's a bit of trivia that Paul took his occasional dislike of Peter out on Mark (Acts 15:39), (eg: This Mark/Marcus whom I think took Peter's oral teaching and converted it into a written Gospel.)
To say that we "use scripture as a common source of information" is insufficient. That may or may not be the common basis that we have. Mormons use scripture as a source of information alongside their book of Mormon. I am not saying your a Mormon, but it illustrates very different ways in which we look at the authority of scripture.
Mormons, by sola scriptura, would include a canon of books not listed in the bible that I (and I presume you?) use.
It illustrates my point about this invented "doctrine" / misnomering, perfectly.
I mean explain, why "sola" is even part of the doctrine's name.... "sola scriptura"?
Compare it to the idea "perspicuity" -- is the name "clear" about what it means, or does it vaguely misguide one?
Sanity check:
There is nothing in scripture listing the books which are scriptural and which aren't.
Many bibles come with footnotes, but those aren't scripture, just cause they are in the bible -- and some bibles don't come with new and old testament; but that doesn't mean the O.T. isn't scripture just because all bibles don't have it.
Older bibles (in Greek) don't even have a Kanon (table of contents) ; so the modern "list" of scripture books doesn't come from the apostles who knew Jesus, or even from apostles taught by apostles.
It seems to me, that contrary to what you seem to be saying -- that either the bible must be a fallible listing of infallible books; or else,somebody remembered something after the last of the twelve apostles died. ( And Paul. )
Caution: We have no definition of "infallible"; it's a troll word invented before the internet. It does not actually mean impeccable when studied historically.
So lets just assume that I made wrong statements about two heretics, Marcion and Origen.
First of all, how do you conclude they are heretics? A heretic is someone condemned by church authority. (Heresy is a wrong teaching -- that's different than heretic, which is a person condemned by church authority for stubbornly holding the doctrine even after correction. ).
Origin was a christian who was condemned by some Catholics in the Roman part of the world -- but not all Christian churches did so. That's what puzzles me about your assertion. Do you, then, accept the authority of those in Rome???? ( Origin lived long after the twelve had died. )
In my own reading of Origin, I think a possibility exists that he might have been misinterpreted when his writings were translated from Greek into Latin; and perhaps didn't mean what he was accused of -- although I do understand why people were angry with him.
What is the importance of those assumed incorrect statements? Would that mean to you that the doctrine of perpicuity is wrong?
Well, if your asking my motives for mentioning Marcion and Origen, I probably mentioned the two of them more on their reputation, than actual original research. I will have to admit that I have read only a handful of Church Fathers and I have never bothered reading the original writings of those deemed heretics.
In the O.P. you gave the impression that the doctrine of perspicuity was as old as Origen. Which means, Origen was one factor in the first four hundred years of Christianity which defined the doctrine in some way through controversy. So: I tend to think you have mis-characterised something about the doctrine and it's antiquity by how you discussed these early Chrisitans.
It would mean (at most) that your understanding of the meaning of the doctrine is based more on "gossip" than on certainty, and doesn't lend credibility to the doctrine.
After reading your response, I have wondered if any original writings exist from Origen. The only link I can find is here.
http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/origen2.htm
The link does not take you to any original internet copies of Origen. I think the link looks like books for scholarship in which an interested scholar would purchase the translation of Origen's writings. In asking for links to something involving original sources, you might be asking for something that does not exist.
Links are perhaps hard to find; Origen's works do exist though mostly just in fragments. I have several.
The fragments I have seen from him show him to be a scripture scholar, who was interested in determining the original meaning of the Scripture texts, by comparing various manuscripts. eg: I agree with this site's view of him (fair use, cited -- a two sentence quote
:
In the third century, the great Christian scholar, Origen (184/85–254/55), keenly interested in the textual differences between the Hebrew and the Greek, set out to arrange the Church's Old Testament in six columns: (1) the Hebrew, (2) a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, (3) Aquila's translation, (4) Symmachus's translation, (5) the Septuagint (LXX), and (6) Theodotion. The volumes were compiled in Caesarea, probably between 230 and 240 CE, a project funded by Origen's patron.
http://www.kalvesmaki.com/lxx/
Origen is probably one of the first to attempt to tackle the problem of the "original" bible manuscripts, whereas Western Christians were content to use either the Greek, or to stick to various Latin translations that had no church's official approbation until a formal translation was made somewhere around 400 A.D.
What Origen tends to prove is that the variations in the Greek were not items which affect the doctrines we argue over today. The Hebrew, however, was changing partially in response to it not being maintained by Christians, but rather by those who were opposed to Christianity. ( Fox guarding the henhouse problem... )
