>>728278
>This opened the floodgates. No longer was a learned, academic and ZEALOT like Priest/Clergy caste in charge of the ancient faith. Now Joe the butcher and Steve the bread merchant, lacking in education and peerage, could make Christ fit into THEIR mold. THEIR understanding.
This is a strawman, so it should be ignored, but it's common enough that I'll adress it
Sola scriptura does not mean you can understand the bible without study. The doctrine of sola scripture is that the holy bible, as the very word of God, is the supreme authority in the Church, and is the fullness of divine revelation, and the final judge of all religious disputes, which all human authorities must defer to. From this proceeds the principal of semper reformanda, that we must subject human authorities to the tribunal of scripture and test them (another common misrepresentation is to equate sola scriptura and semper reformanda) to ensure we remain faithful to the scripture. A common allegation even made by you is that we make every man a supreme judge of truth, but this is false not only since we expressly hold scripture to have this role, but also because you will never actually find one of us saying to some scripture-twisting heretic "well, that's your interpretation, and since the interpreter is the final authority, I can't reproach you", but we rebuke such persons on the grounds that they twist the scripture. We don't need to accept false interpretations because we do not make interpretation the authority, rather the word is the authority, and the word judges all interpretation. Perhaps you will object, "how can scripture judge interpretation when it is known through interpretation?", but I answer that interpretation is distinct from interpreted text, and man is able to truthfully interpret, that is, interpretation need not be a pure fabrication in the mind of the interpreter, but man is able to extract the genuine meaning out of messages (otherwise, all communication would be impossible, and all religion would be false). Therefore, men are capable of discerning the true intended meaning of scripture, and squaring any interpretation against it, including their own, since these words were spoken by our creator, and He did so with the intent to be heard. Otherwise, a truly divine religion is quite impossible. This is why those noble Bereans who are devoted to being led by God generally have either very similar or exactly the same interpretations, even without contact. But this is not to say we cannot be enlightened as to the meaning of scripture by other believers, because they can show us what it means.
>We had the Anabaptist horrors of Münster
The Anabaptists rejected this principle in favor of a spirit of fanaticism and enthusiasm. They considered it a priori that anything which is Romish is also unscriptural, so they rejected all scriptural teachings that agreed with the church of Rome (such as the command of infant baptism, the rejection of which provided their name). They also rejected the sole divinity of scripture in favor of private revelations and spirits.
>Icon are seen as pictures of loved ones and friends. We consider Saints to already be in heaven and kiss their photos as if kissing a loved one.
>Praying to Saints ='s asking them to pray for you. The same way you ask a friend or loved one to pray for you.
If someone practiced 'dulia' with a dead loved one as the object instead of a saint (such as creating a shrine featuring their image, burning incense and kneeling before it and praying to them), nobody would shrink back from calling it idolatry. This distinction between latria and dulia is clearly invented to justify blatant idolatry, and it is offensive to God.