Talk:Sola scriptura/Archive 3

Roman Catholic position
I edited the section on the Roman Catholic position, and Secisek reverted my changes with the comment "Article is not of excessive length nor doe this fail WP:UNDUE, discuss removeal on talk page." So here we are.

I redacted the text, not because the article was overly long or gave undue weight to the RC position, but because it was not neutrally written and rather rambling (note that this does not necessarily say anything about the rest of the article one way or the other, but it is true here). Moreover, the current text is essentially a verbatim text dump from the Catholic Encyclopedia with citations but without quotation marks. That work, while certainly admissible as a primary source on the Catholic position, is not neutral in its treatment of this topic (e.g., "As immediate, implicit submission of the mind was in the lifetime of the Apostles the only necessary token of faith, there was no room whatever for what is now called private judgment. This is quite clear from the words of Scripture [quotation follows]...."), and thus the text of that work should not be quoted as an objective statement of the facts.

Hence, I propose that we restore my redacted version and further adjust it to note direct quotations etc. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The section is on the Roman Catholic position and is expected to be from their POV. I don't feel really strongly about this, but I ran across the Catholic Encyclopedia article and thought this section would be a great addition here. Any other oppinions? -- SECisek 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But it is not neutrally worded. If we were to say, "The Catholic Encyclopedia says, 'Catholicism is right and Protestantism is a bunch of hogwash.'", well that's fine. The problem is when it is stated objectively without quotation marks, as in the example I quoted above. My edits neutralized it. They also shortened the content a bit, since, as I say, it rather rambles. Encyclopedic style in the Wikipedia is a bit different than in the CE, and the focus is a bit different here. In short, we need to summarize the Catholic position concisely in more neutral terms, and leaving aside the issue of quotations that are not marked as such, I think my edits did that better than the current text. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 19:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be quite clear that this is not fact but the POV of the Roman Catholic church: "Roman Catholics, on the other hand, argue", "The Roman Catholic Church does not deny", "is thought by Roman Catholics to be immovable", "The Roman Catholic position is", "In the Roman Catholic view", "Rome attributes them" and so on. As for the quality of the prose, it can be improved, but I dont see a POV problem here. -- SECisek 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a few more edits to clarify things in the hope of more neutrality. I really have to agree with Flex. I'm not advocating deleting if it can be neutral. Just because the header is the "Roman Catholic Postition", doesn't leave room for sermonizing on the subject by the CE or anyone else.Brian0324 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, how can a section on the Roman Catholic position not discuss the Roman Catholic position? Full disclousre: I am not a Roman Catholic in any way, shape, or form. I just found this info interesting and thought we should include it. -- SECisek 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course a section entitled "Roman Catholic Position" should discuss the Roman Catholic position on the issue in question. The issue is, as I am understanding the discussion here (and have seen happen in other places) how said information is presented.  The 1913 CE has some great info, but it never works to cut and paste directly into wikipedia, because (1) it is written from (and for) a very specific POV, and (2) its age presents further problems of style and POV.  The information should be used, but rewritten in a more neutral style and tone.  Pastordavid 20:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)`


 * To make another point, I removed this statement which is nothing more than a criticism of the Protestant movement - "The divisions, not only between sect and sect but within the same sect, have become a byword". It followed the quote by Newman which essentially argued the same thing. It's just not WP policy to allow a POV being added without citation.Brian0324 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pastordavid, some wordsmith needs to be bold. -- SECisek 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was bold, and you reverted it. ;-) --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair play. No, this has been a good discussion! -- SECisek 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So do you consent to restore my edited version, which I daresay is still considerably better as far as the Wikipedia is concerned? --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If User:Brian0324 and user:Pastordavid agree I will respect consensus. Again, it doesn't mean that much to me.


 * For my two cents, I think Flex presents a neutral re-write of the material from CE, and think it is a go. Pastordavid (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't following this and I just made a large series of edits here. Please review and feel free to change. I admit that I only quickly attempted to make SECisek's additions neautral, but it probably doesn't read very smoothly.Brian0324 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to revert to Flex's changes, and you all agree that it was improvement, I won't object, be bold. Discussion always wins the day! -- SECisek (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Serious POV problem with the last two sentences on the Catholic position, dont you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.51.243 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Divisions of Protestants and Sola Scriptura being the cause of division -- possible NPOV violation
The Divisions of Protestants section is biased (possible NPOV violation) when it reads:

"From that time forward fragmentation based on sola scriptura has predominated within Protestantism, although rare movements toward union have achieved success."

Catholic apologetics often makes the argument that Sola Scriptura inherently causes division. Many Protestants argue that it's not Sola Scriptura that's the problem, but people who fail to use it properly.

Regardless of who is correct, why is the former position given more weight (read: all the weight) than the latter?

I suggest two small sections, one explaining the Catholic understanding of Sola Scriptura as it relates to division, and one detailing the Protestant response to this charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.56.252 (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Protestantism vs. Category:Protestant Reformation
Category:Protestant Reformation is itself a category within Category:Protestantism. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed statement that "sola scriptura" causes division
I removed the statement that "sola scriptura" is the cause of division in Protestantism, and the author's categorization of Protestantism, because it reflected Roman Catholic ideology and its claims were factually inaccurate. There were only a few branches of Protestantism before the late 19th/early 20th century, and these groups regarded themselves as part of the larger church, based on a counciliar view of the Church, with some disagreements between themselves and Rome - NOT as separate "one true churches" to the exclusion of all others. The multiplication of Protestant denominations into liberal, evangelical, and fundamentalist versions (for example, the Presbyterian Church-USA, the Presbyterian Church in America, and the Bible Presbyterian Church) had nothing to do with sola scriptura, but with debates about whether the Bible's text was literally inspired by God. The birth of Pentecostal denominations had to do with a series of revivals that participants thought restored spiritual gifts to the Church, not with different interpretations of the Bible, although those came later to support Pentecostal claims. The generally-held view of denominations within Protestantism means that the multiplication of denominations is not necessarily a bad thing or something to be avoided, since all the various denominations are valid expressions of the Church, much like the different rites in Catholicism. For example, the Wesleyan Church and the Church of the Nazarene decided that nothing separated them theologically or politically - but still chose not to unite, since they felt they magnified their impact and supported more colleges and other institutions by remaining different denominations. To a Catholic, this would be utter blasphemy, but to a Protestant, it's the way the Church is.- --ManicBrit (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

History of Sola Scriptura
I would like to propose a section on the history of this doctrine. Who first formulated it and in what context? How has the doctrine been developed over time? What role has it played in the history of religion and religious controversies?

Is there anyone that feels up to producing a paragraph or two? I came to this article hoping to find this sort of material myself so I don't feel qualified to be able to help.

Any takers? Tctwood (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC).


 * The principle of Sola Scriptura was first articulated (as such) during the Protestant Reformation in response to what had evolved in the Roman church. The background is covered in the Scripture and Tradition subsection.  I don't see much to add in a section on "history".  Jim Ellis (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Protestant Reformation" is a wide topic, some doctrinal is covered in "Scripture and Tradition", yes, but then, I'm not sure that we can find "sola scriptura" on any of Luther's works for example, and I've never read any I just haven't seen anything on that when reading about comments on his work. The history of Sola Scriptura. I'm researching this topic, maybe I can contribute when I finish my studies but I guess that Jim's point is very valid. Afortaleza (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete and start over
This article is so bad in so many ways, it needs to be trashed and redone. Perhaps it could be retranslated from the German Wikipedia or replaced with a Schaff encyclopedic article and edited from there.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been a contributor here, and I think that's a pretty good idea. I vote for Schaff-Herzog. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 01:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The most relevant Schaff-Herzog article I could find is Protestantism, "Theory and Use of the Bible". The Lutheran Cyclopedia (1899) article Word of God may also have some promise. It seems to me that public domain English sources usually used the term "sole authority" rather than "sola scriptura".--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)]


 * I concur. This article is really, really BAD.  In particular, the section on Lutherism and sola scriptura is filled with statements that are either misleading or outright wrong.  First of all, there is not a single voice for Lutheranism within the American Lutheran context.  The resource cited in ref #5 (Graebner) is published by Concordia in St. Louis, MO.  Concordia is affiliated with the Missouri Synod in America, a Lutheran synod noted for it's conservative views and literal interpretations of the Bible by many adherents.  On the other hand, the largest Lutheran synod in the United States is the ELCA (Evalgelical Lutheran Church in America), which came about through a merger of the American Lutheran Church (ALC), the Lutheran Church in America (LCA), most of the churches in the Wisconsin Synod and fewer of the churches in the Missouri Synod.  The ELCA tends to take a more scholarly approach to the interpretation of the Bible, not entirely dissimilar (but not the same) as that of Eastern Orthodoxy.  The ELCA does not believe (as stated in this Wikipedia article) that scripture is the final authority for all matters of faith and morals because of its inspiration, authority, clarity, effectiveness, and sufficiency.  As stated on the ELCA website, The "sola scriptura" principle does not exclude the use of other resources, for [sola scriptura] had a very limited use in the Reformation era, i.e., a reforming one. [That purpose] was to oppose ecclesiastical traditions that are contrary to the teachings of the Scriptures.  In other words, Martin Luther did not object to supplementary material being used within the Christian life and the church, on the contrary he was foremost a scholar.  Luther opposed ecumenical tradition and Christian dogma in the Catholic church which were being used as a tool to prevent the common man, frequently illiterate in Luther's day, from coming to his / her own understanding of the teachings of the triune God.  Seriously, this article is treating a very complicated subject with far too much generality and imprecision.  It should be redone completely and attempt to delineate the eastern vs. western views as much as the Roman Catholic vs. Protestant ones.  --Symmerhill (a.k.a. Summerhill) (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good God, this is awful. It's incredibly slanted, and inaccurate.  Orthodoxy & Catholicism need to represented substantially, as they have extremely different viewpoints on Sola Scriptura. This article glosses over them & gives the erroneous impression that there isn't much theological debate. Please delete this article & try again. --24.17.226.35 (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Origins?
I'm curious about the origins of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The Protestant view tends to be that Sola Scriptura goes back to the earliest times (after the death of the last apostle), while I usually hear (outside pro-Protestant sources) that Martin Luther originated the doctrine and was the first (within Christianity at least) to preach it. But I've also heard it argued (online) that John Wyclif was actually the first to propose it towards the end of his life, a century before Luther. Perhaps a statement of the scholarly view(s) vs. traditional views would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.185.126 (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sola Scriptura Not Set Down in Scripture
If by sola scriptura we are to understand that we are not to add to or remove from the word of God, that doctrine is clearly scriptural.

Deuteronomy 4:2 (King James Version) 2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30:5-6 (King James Version) 5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

1 Peter 4:11 (King James Version) 11If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 22:18-19 (King James Version) 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Respectfully, Bro. Neal (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this section is still even in the article, but I don't understand this comment, which is basically "If by sola scriptura we are to understand [something totally unrelated to the doctrine of sola scriptura]..." I don't get it.PStrait (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Critiques" section
At the moment, the entire section is WP:Original research. One editor made a good faith attempt at referencing this with a book reference from Mathison, a Protestant who defends Sola scriptura in the reference given but asserts that other Protestants employ a "defective version" of it. He also makes vague reference there to "Roman Catholic and Orthodox apologists", but does not explicitly name them. I can't see from the Google Books version whether the book provides a bibliography that clarifies this, but a better reference is needed, with explicit attribution on who said what. Further down the section, lots of WP:OR assertions are made about Sola scriptura being: ...without any attribution. This is original research. I've reverted the good faith addition of that reference. We need to instead find WP:Reliable sources with attribution of which notable theologian made these arguments, otherwise the section isn't encyclopedic, it's polemic to advance a POV on the subject, and should be removed. Dai Pritchard (talk)
 * "self-referentially incoherent"
 * "Jesus and Paul accepted non-Biblical oral and written traditions into scripture"
 * "The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does."
 * "They also says that, since the 27 books that make up the New Testament canon of Scripture are not based on a Scriptural list that authenticates them to be inspired, their legitimacy would be impossible to distinguish with certainty without appealing to another infallible source..."
 * "...the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which is noted for having assembled and authenticated this list at The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. Before which, a compiled and authenticated Bible as it is now known did not yet exist."
 * He does explicitly name eight such critics, half of them ex-Protestants. See page 13.  I am not saying that those he names say what is in the following paragraphs, and I don't have time to hunt out citations of people who do say what is in those paragraphs, which you are free to question.  So please excuse me restoring what is reliably sourced.  Esoglou (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If we don't have time to cite who said what, then it really shouldn't be in there. Let's stick to what we can reliably source now, and then add more reliably sourced and attributed statements when we get the time. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization
At the time of writing, this article uses every possible combination of capitalizing "sola" and "scriptura". Can someone update it to use consistent capitalization? — DanielLC 04:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Confused definitions
This article has many competing definitions for the term, most of them in the first paragraph!
 * "the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness" - sufficiency of scripture
 * "only those doctrines be admitted or confessed that are found directly within Scripture or are drawn indirectly from it by valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning" - this sounds like the Regulative principle of worship
 * "Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God." - the supreme authority of scripture

I'm not certain that I have the correct understanding of it myself, but I've always heard it taught as the third one there: that sola scriptura means that scripture is the ultimate authority, even over every person and church body. I think it is very misleading for the first sentence of the page to be about a completely different doctrine. --Curiousdannii (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree: it's the third one. StAnselm (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 one external links on Sola scriptura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091020002841/http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=c&word=CANON.BIBLE to http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=C&word=CANON.BIBLE
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140109230252/http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Scripture/Articles/SolaScripturasSelf-Refutation.aspx to http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Scripture/Articles/SolaScripturasSelf-Refutation.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Prima Scriptura
I think this post has the Anglican position wrong, but I haven't changed it since I'm not sure.

Footnote 4 says "A favorite, if overworked, image among Anglicans is that of the three-legged stool, which stands only when all three legs are in place, as a visual way to think of the Anglican view of authority. We acknowledge three sources of authority, and we manage not to fall down when all three are in place. The first and most important of these is the Bible. The Articles of Religion, a Reformation-era statement of Anglican views on questions of the day, says that the Bible "containeth all things necessary to salvation," so that nothing not found in the Bible is to be required as an article of faith."

This admits that the denomination's official creed says that the Bible contains all things necessary to salvation---which is sola scriptura in a nutshell. Nobody denies that reason is useful (and necessary) in interpreting Scripture, but reason isn't an authority. Neither is tradition--- nowhere does the 39 Articles state a necessary doctrine which is based on tradition rather than Scripture.

Anglicanism is complicated by the fact that Anglo-Catholics would like it to be more like Roman Catholicism, and hence to adopt doctrines found only in tradition, but they have to do a lot of wiggling to get round the 39 Articles. Hence, Wikipedia must be on the lookout for wishful thinking by a faction of the Church of England. (Of course, modern Anglicanism,in England and the US at least, pretty much dumps Scripture altogether, despite retaining the 39 Articles. But for the article it is appropriate to talk of Anglicanism in terms of its official doctrines.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erasmuse (talk • contribs) 04:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Richard Hooker never said anything about a three-legged stool. In fact, the original quote from the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity suggests something more like stair steps. “Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this the Church succeedeth that which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever. “ (Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, 8:2) This is the locus classicus of the so-called three-legged stool, and there is clearly a hierarchy of authority here : first Scripture, then Reason, then Tradition. So I would recommend either deleting Hooker entirely from the text, since it implies that he says something he actually does not, or deleting the "three-legged stool" metaphor and inserting the Hooker quote. 169.229.11.167 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed "Catholic Position"
I removed the "Catholic Position" section for the following reasons:


 * Earlier statements in the article noted that Catholics rely on "sacred tradition" and consider sola scriptura heretical and destructive.
 * The "Catholic Position" section was written as an attempt to force traditionalist Catholic arguments against sola scriptura into this article, giving the traditionalist Catholic perspective undue weight. It also forced Protestants to refute the arguments. This made for an article that wasn't really an encyclopedia article about "sola scriptura," but a debate page. In my judgment, this is not appropriate. It would be analogous to turning the 9-11 article into a long debate about the claims of the 9-11 truth movement, or devoting a huge section of the article on Evolution into a creationist-evolutionist debate.
 * The section showed signs of continuing to grow beyond the article's scope, with fresh additions being recently added by a Catholic apologist in an attempt to try to refute the Protestant refutations of the apologists' original arguments.
 * As is often the case with Catholic apologists, many of the claims put forward by Catholic apologists were patently untrue. RC Sproul never said that the canon is open to being enlarged, and some apologists included references to web sites full of pseudo-archeology, deliberately misleading and deconstructionistic exegesis of the Apocrypha, and other mendacious claims.

Ultra-traditionalist "Catholic apologetics" is something of an internet cult, on par with veganism or young-earth creationism in regards to its factual accuracy and integrity. Allowing them to freely post all their contrived arguments, most of which are just based on misleading use of language (for example, making a claim about "tradition" that defines it as a body of oral teachings passed on by the apostles, and then "proving" the existence of tradition by noting ritual traditions developed centuries later, thus employing two different definitions of "tradition" to confuse and obfuscate the real issues), would be equivalent to allowing young-earth creationists to control the article on evolution, the birth-certificate deniers to control the article on Obama, or vegans to control the article about meat consumption. --ManicBrit (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)--ManicBrit (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have undone your destructive edit. Please don't go about insulting the integrity of good faith contributions and their editors. If you wish to continue to talk, please do so on my talk page. --Rockstone (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rockstone, most of that section in the deleted form was written by me, so I'm not sure if I should be complimented or miffed at your assertion that my edit was "destructive." As I pointed out, much of the material that was put into this section prior to me was factually inaccurate, and potentially even libelous towards living persons, and therefore clearly did not belong in this article.--ManicBrit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

ManicBrit, you do not own articles or parts of them, and how is it Libelous?! It defends the Catholic Church from accusations. --Rockstone (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Rockstone, the Catholic Apologists who butchered this article said that RC Sproul said the NT canon was open, and included a reference to a book. I looked up the book, and it said no such thing. That is slander towards Sproul. Again, this article already says that the RCC follows "holy tradition" and sees truth as coming from a combo of tradition, scripture, and the papacy. What does this bloated section add? Just the convoluted, contrived arguments of internet "apologists," most of which are just based on logical category mistakes and sophistic use of language. What does it accomplish - other than trying to frame the article as a long list of accusations against Reformed Christians, throwing them on the defensive, rather than simply being an encyclopedia article that explains succinctly what sola scriptura is? As you say, I don't own articles - but neither is Catholic Answers a credible source, or the official RCC dogma the established "truth" that all articles must bow to. --ManicBrit (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in two minds to remove the Dave Armstrong material since it is just the ramblings of some Catholic apologist blogger. 66.187.239.16 (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ... hmm, hmm, hmm, ... using the policies as baseball bats ... fascinating ... Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Untitled
Christian rebuttal link removed, link no longer exists. Seemingly the entire domain is missing. An Orthodox Christian rebuttal to Sola scriptura (Richardault (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sola scriptura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731225827/http://www.monergism.com/updates/reformation_essentials_by_mich.php to http://www.monergism.com/updates/reformation_essentials_by_mich.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212170522/http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)