/lit/ - Literature

>>17152811
1/2
>Scripture interprets Scripture. If a part of the Bible is unclear, you refer to a clearer part of the Bible to interpret it.
The fact that modern Protestants STILL parrot this talking point never fails to make me lol.
So let's take your point and run with it. Tell me, can you, WITHOUT summoning a single outside source or theological tradition, explain the following:
>Free will or predestination
>Penal substitution vs Christus victor vs literally any other atonement theory
>If christians can eat blood sausage
>How a church should be governed
>Whether women can be priests/pastors or even deacons
>What the litmus test for being a Christian is (Are LDS Christian? JWs?)
>Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or the Father and Son
>If baptism is immersion, sprinkling or some other form
>What does baptism even do, if anything?
>Once saved, always saved?
>Will all be saved?
>What even is salvation? What does it entail?
>Do the unborn or infants go to Hell?
>For that matter, what is Hell?
Okay, so that's a lot. Well, instead of explaining those to me, how about you instead explain why, if "scripture interprets scripture" and it's so self-evident from reading the text, there are an innumerable number of different positions within the Protestant umbrella on ALL of these issues? Is everyone except Pastor Billy Bob's First Baptist Church of Kerrville TX interpreting scripture wrong?

I ask these questions because ultimately, Sola Scriptura is intellectually deficient in so many areas. It cannot even justify its own reason for being – please, if you would, could you kindly point to where, SPECIFICALLY, the Bible CLEARLY posits the concept of Sola Scriptura? In a way that no reasonable man could contradict.