I will check it out.
However, that doesn’t fix my problem. If I am to represent SS using Keith Mathison’s understanding of it, the James White camp will simply tell me that I am still misrepresenting SS. 
For example, James White goes on to say: “But far more damaging is the simple fact that Mr. Ray does not know what sola scriptura is.”Oddly enough he even said that Augustine did not appeal to tradition.
All in all James seems like a really intelligent guy which is why I figured his understanding of SS might be the one that is properly represented."[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in Apostolic Tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, 'that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to Apostolic Tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,' is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).
"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).And your above statement also fits:
I am fallible…which means my view of SS could be wrong.
Not to pile on but I don’t think that all “protestants” ( using a term that seems to mean all those who aren’t Catholic or Orthodox) agree on everything. They are certainly divided and subdivided into tens of thousands of groups…must be for some reason…ne c’est pas?
I agree the Westminster Confession doesn’t sound like White. I was just suggesting that it might be a better, or more widely accepted example of “sola scriptura”? Or do you not see it as such?
While I don’t buy into the thousands and thousands thing, it is certainly true that there are different communions that are included in the loose category of Christans commonly referred to as protestant.Not to pile on but I don’t think that all “protestants” ( using a term that seems to mean all those who aren’t Catholic or Orthodox) agree on everything. They are certainly divided and subdivided into tens of thousands of groups…must be for some reason…ne c’est pas?
Well, I hope, a person being infallible isn’t the only way I can determine which version of sola scriptura is right, for no human is infallible, depending on what one means when one uses the word infallible of course. My goal is to avoid being told, by any and all SS proponents, that I need to stop misrepresenting SS. That really is the ultimate point of this thread.
Perhaps if I can determine, conclusively, what the consensus was among the original reformers, I could use that to defend myself when folks say things like:
Hey Izdaari. Methodist tradition right? If so what are some Methodist traditions? Just curious if they are similar to catholic tradition.
Well said Jon. I for one do not. Now, if we are talking Solo Christo (solus Christus) that is a different matter.
I am humbled by your honesty. I praise you for your sincerity. Sometimes we may see things that we never noticed and as you say you could not believe before what you can believe now. I believe in what I believe and am ever marvelled as to what is revealed and adds to that belief and makes it ever the more firm.
Praise you for that admission.
It seems to me that you have already made a start in that regard…by realizing that there is not just one school of thought wrt SS.
If there is no Universal Understanding of Sola Scriptura then it cannot be true or better said it cannot be universally understood.
Well, Joe. There wasn’t a consensus regarding really important things, like the real presence, etc. The point is that protestantism was not ever a monolith to begin with.
Jon,
I understand.
Do you know if the reformers were unanimously united, at least on the definition of Sola Scriptura? If so then what was it?The real presence is a product of Christ’s words and the power of the Holy Spirit.Jon,
You are comparing apples and oranges, and I do not mean 9-9-9…
The Real Presence is a product of the Magesterium, Sacred Tradition and Scripture…
Sola Scriptura is the basis from which things like denial of the real presence is produced.
The product of something and the product that determines something are not comparing the same things…