[Dr. Eckleburg]

I never claimed that my belief could be proven from Scripture. That level of proof was introduced by you.

That about says it all.

And FWIW (which is considerable) "that level of proof was introduced" by Paul.

"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." -- 2 Timothy 3:13-17

[monkfan]

That about says it all.

Right, wrong or indifferent, I'm going to insist that this playing field remain level. Do not hold me to some standard that you are unable to adhere to yourself. Specifically, do not require me to produce Scripture at every utterance and then, in the next breath, try to make an appeal solely to reason.

And FWIW (which is considerable) "that level of proof was introduced" by Paul.

Paul said that Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." IF he had said that "deductive reasoning where Scripture is silent is inherently evil", THEN you would have a valid point. But since it does not, you are completely off base.

Stay focused, "Doc".

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

Oh, the irony.

[jo kus]

I wish I had a dollar for every time Protestants dragged out 2 Timothy 3:13-17 and trying to force it to fit into their little preconceived idea of Sola Scriptura!

So much rests on this one little verse that doesn't say anything about NECESSITY, NOR does it EXCLUDE anything! It merely says that Scriptures are PROFITABLE! This, just as in Romans 3:28, is another case of Protestants not understanding the simple rules of language - that is, they automatically think if one thing is mentioned as "profitable", then all other things are excluded.

Thus, if I say a baseball is profitable for playing baseball, a Protestant would say that we no longer need a baseball bat...

Regards

[annalex]

2 Timothy 3:13-17 in no way supports Sola Scriptura. All it says is that a member of the Catholic clergy will profit from reading the scripture when he needs to reproof Calvine or some other heretic. But it does not saty that Monkfan's knowledge of the divine Revelation is limited to the canonical scripture.