This is a response to the arguments against Sola Scriptura by Paleocrats. I don't get into too much detail in actually defending the doctrine. Instead, I attempt to point out the logical flaws first. The first of them being the caricatures/straw man argument against Sola Scriptura. The way this comes out in Paleocrat's video is that the person who interprets the Bible is presented as a person with no boundaries in Scripture interpretation. I have pointed out in another video response that the Reformers NEVER endorsed such a view. Rather, a good reading of Calvin's Institutes will even show that there were methods for understanding the original intent of the author. This method is the historico-grammatical method which endeavors to understand the scriptures in its original cultural context, historical setting, original languages and intent of the authors, etc... R.C. Sproul has noted that the person who seeks to interpret Scripture is obligated by God to interpret it correctly and not according to their own desires (paraphrase). Enjoy the video. Any questions, feel free to mail. www.geocities.com/prchdaword/index.htmlI have some studies on Sola Scriptura under the Westminster Confession of Faith Studies on my site. God bless.

Video providers : , and this video is stored with all copyright by