Anyone catch that?
I mean, really, why would anyone believe the argument!
I"m returning to the counting of the angels on the head of this pin ~ should keep me occupied for a good long while too.
So who gets to determine which parts of the Bible aren’t correct or sufficient?
Does that change on Monday vs Friday night?
Well, if we abandon it, it means we need to return to stoning false prophets.
You can’t use the authority of the Bible to disprove the Bible’s authority. Definitely a logical failure.
Don’t believe me? Read the book. :-)
LOL! Too obvious I guess.
Not at all.
If one claims that the Bible alone is the rule of faith, then the Bible itself should contain an assertion that it is itself the rule of faith.
One doesn't need to believe that the Bible is the only authority to believe that the Bible has authority.
Well, since the Bible itself refers to unwritten teachings, enjoining their obedience, that puts the SS crown in something of a pickle.
Well, since the Bible itself refers to unwritten teachings, enjoining their obedience, that puts the SS crowd in something of a pickle.
“There is a sort of logical error in using Bible scripture to argue sola scriptura is not Biblical.”
BINGO!
The logical failure would be that the authority of scripture alone is not scriptural.
Sola scriptura fails its own test - it is internally contradictory, self-contradictory.
The book’s approach is a corollary - scripture contradicts sola scriptura.
Not true, the Bible as we know it came into existence after the Church. We know that the Church was founded by Jesus not because the Bible tells us so but rather because the Church existed already when the canon was adopted in the 4th century. Using the bible to refute sola scriptura is not illogical since it is the sola scriptura folks that claim the bible is all you need. Catholics do not claim that the only thing you need is the Bible therefore it is not inconsistent to use it to refute sola scriptura. If yoou were to say that you only need the letters of Paul for instance and i used the letters of Paul to show you that he denied that claim that would not be illogical any more than this use of the Bible is to refute sola scriptura.
Not as glaring as the logical error in assuming the Bible excludes tradition, when it is tradition that dictates which books are included in the Bible. Where in Scripture does it list those books are to be included and which are to be considered apocryphal?