And you think I am the illogical one here??? Let me put it this way: we both agree the Bible is the inspired word of God. We both agree that the Bible is the authority (I say sole, you say not the sole) for doctrines of the Christian faith. Okay so far? Why you felt the need to bring up aliens, I don't know, but I'll proceed.
You said: If I say Mormonism is unscriptural, that does not mean sola scriptura is true. That only means Mormonism is not supported by scripture. Do you see the difference? Umm...yeah, do you??? How can you say anything is wrong if you have no sole, objective authority by which to judge it? I'm not convinced you really know what sola scriptura means. There are many verses that speak to the inspiration by God of holy men. Verses also say that scripture exists so that the man of God may be "fully furnished unto all good works". They've been quoted numerous times here. Why do you think God bothered to record his messages to mankind and preserve it for him for all time?
Finally, how could the traditions and dogmas of fallible men be held at the same level of reliability for truth as God's own revealed word? That is really the gist, I think. You cannot admit that the Bible is the ultimate authority we must all use if we call ourselves Christian. It contains everything God wants us to know is true concerning the faith. Obviously, not EVERYTHING that exists in the world is in it, but what pertains to salvation and Godliness is there. Does the Bible say don't go to movies? No. But the guidelines are there so that we know right from wrong. I understand that on minor issues (things that are not expressly spelled out) we have liberty. The major doctrines are clear and we should have unity. And as Christians, we should always have love.
You wrote:
“As I thought, the entire point is lost because of preconceived ideas. What is TRULY ridiculous is to say the fact that something can be non scriptural does not mean that sola scriptura is true.”
No, everything I said was perfectly logical. I even gave analogies that show my point is sound.
“And you think I am the illogical one here???”
No, I KNOW you are the illogical one here. I can see it in your posts.
“Let me put it this way: we both agree the Bible is the inspired word of God.”
Agreed.
” We both agree that the Bible is the authority (I say sole, you say not the sole) for doctrines of the Christian faith. Okay so far?”
Nope. I believe the Bible is AN authority. I do not believe it is the only authority. To believe the Bible is THE authority is to believe in a form of sola scriptura. I do not believe in any heretical doctrines - and that includes sola scriptura.
“Why you felt the need to bring up aliens, I don’t know, but I’ll proceed.”
Because it helps prove my point. Are alien life forms from another planet in the Bible ANYWHERE. No. So how could there non-existence in the Bible prove sola scriptura? It can’t. It is completely illogical to think it does.
“Umm...yeah, do you??? How can you say anything is wrong if you have no sole, objective authority by which to judge it?”
Why is a sole authority needed to judge the non-existence of something in a book? Again, is Mormonism in the Bible? You know it isn’t. I know it isn’t. Thus, it is unscriptural. That tells us nothing about the Bible itself other than it lacks any support for Mormonism. It doesn’t tell us the Bible is inspired, has a black leather cover, has 73 books, was written in Semitic languages and Greek or anything else - other than it says nothing supportive of Mormonism. You are making the INCREDIBLE logical leap from the non-existence of something in a book to the conclusion that that means that books must be the sole authority on religious matters. The one in no way leads to the other. First, it is a completely illogical and unsupportable idea. Second, it in no way precludes the existence of other authorities.
“I’m not convinced you really know what sola scriptura means.”
I’m not convinced you do.
“There are many verses that speak to the inspiration by God of holy men.”
Inspiration does not mean sole authority.
“Verses also say that scripture exists so that the man of G”
od may be “fully furnished unto all good works”.”
Which still doesn’t mean sole authority.
“They’ve been quoted numerous times here.”
And none of them point to sole authority.
“Why do you think God bothered to record his messages to mankind and preserve it for him for all time?”
So we would know it. Not so we would be confused about how to use it like Protestants who believe in sola scriptura.
“Finally, how could the traditions and dogmas of fallible men be held at the same level of reliability for truth as God’s own revealed word?”
Simple: God entrusted them to an infallible Church which would never be overcome by Hell.
“That is really the gist, I think. You cannot admit that the Bible is the ultimate authority we must all use if we call ourselves Christian.”
Sola scriptura is a 16th century invention. It is not from Christ, nor the Church.
“It contains everything God wants us to know is true concerning the faith. Obviously, not EVERYTHING that exists in the world is in it, but what pertains to salvation and Godliness is there. Does the Bible say don’t go to movies? No. But the guidelines are there so that we know right from wrong. I understand that on minor issues (things that are not expressly spelled out) we have liberty. The major doctrines are clear and we should have unity. And as Christians, we should always have love.”
Sola scriptura is a 16th century Protestant invention. Christians should never buy into heretical ideas like it. Scripture is far too sacred to be degraded with such silly heretical notions.