Sola scriptura (scripture alone) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. In other words, the phrase has nothing to do with inerrancy or literalism!
Many attribute literalism and inerrancy as a product of the 1600 Protestant movement and though it had some minor beginnings there, the whole literal-inerrancy paradigms actually began a little over 100 years ago.
The founding fathers of Christianity knew nothing or literalism-inerrancy arguments.
Fundamentalism is the backbone of the literal-inerrant argument. The term “Fundamentalist” derives from a 1909 publication “The Fundamentals: A testimony to the truth” which proposed five required Christian beliefs for those opposed to the Modernist movement.
While Luther gets the credit for bringing Protestantism into the world, he never saw the Bible as literal, nor inerrant. In fact, Luther only saw 25 of the New Testament books as worthy of being canonized. Luther placed James and Revelations out of his Bible. And as for literalism, he would have none of it saying among other things, “God didn’t walk in the garden”.
It’s a METAPHOR!
Sola Scriptura I agree with; however, that has nothing to do with a literal-inerrant approach to the Bible. I take the Historical-Metaphysical approach to Bible interpretation. What’s your approach?