This question is directed at ministers, and those proficient in Latin: is "Solus" the correct word to use here? And why was this idea of the Holy Spirit alone never formally developed as were the other Solas? "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21 "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." 2 Samuel 23:2 The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not viable on its own, it must always be accompanied by the Holy Spirit, whereby we have the witness that it is indeed the Word of God. The Roman church blasphemously claims that Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture, but it is, and here most clearly in 2 Peter, as well as in the preceding verse, 20, which reads "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." For no man may interpret Scripture, or else you have a profusion of blasphemies spread forth from the heart of man, but it is by the Holy Spirit witnessing in our hearts to the truth of Scripture, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, and only as the human faculty of reason is used as the instrument to search out the things that the Holy Spirit would reveal within in us. If you deny Sola Scriptura, you necessarily deny Solus Spiritus Sanctus, and thus deny the Trinity, and are but a vain blasphemer. Without the Holy Spirit, we cannot know the truth of Scripture to be infallible, for the Spirit of God opens our eyes to its truth and power. So why was this never layed down as a pillar of our faith, in support and concert with the other Solas?