[Cronos]

Hardly -- do read your post #3677 again -- this is ostensibly in response to Annalex saying Mary the Mother of God was at the Cross along with Mary Cleophas and Mary Magdalene. Mary the Mother of God was not among the women bringing myrrh to the tomb.

And in response to this you say Um, where is the term *Mother of God* found in Scripture?

There is no discussion about "sola scriptura" --> until NOW.

So where is the term 'sola scriptura' found in Scripture?

Where is the term 'sola fide' found in scripture (trick question :-) ?

We don't believe in the term "sola scriptura" i.e. ALONE. hence your argument about why we follow terms that aren't there is nonsensical -- YOU believe in sola scriptura, i.e. every term should be in the Bible ALONE, yet you believe in non-Biblical terms like "sola scriptura", "sola fide", "trinity".

Check the plank in your own eye...

[boatbums]

We don't believe in the term "sola scriptura" i.e. ALONE. hence your argument about why we follow terms that aren't there is nonsensical -- YOU believe in sola scriptura, i.e. every term should be in the Bible ALONE, yet you believe in non-Biblical terms like "sola scriptura", "sola fide", "trinity". Check the plank in your own eye...

There is NOTHING nonsensical about the argument we are trying to discuss. The point, again, is that though the "terms" sola scriptura, sola fide, and trinity are not in the Bible, their concept and their doctrinal references certainly are. The gist of the argument is then that we can believe in those doctrines that Holy Scripture teaches but issues or points in which Scripture is either silent or is NOT in agreement with cannot be stated as dogma and certainly not as salvific. Hence, the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness cannot be stated as de fide or "of the faith" nor can belief in it or disbelief of it be used to determine the righteousness of the Christian. Perhaps if that plank were removed you could understand the difference.