A brilliant observation... And it is not remarkable only in the aspect that our opponents' reasoning is nearly always circular. It must be, in order to sustain a belief which is faulty. One must always orbit around that fault, never getting too close, never confronting it head on.
Sola-scriptura is a simple matter to validate:
God said stuff. He said specifically what He likes, what He doesn't like, and what He will do.
If someone comes along claiming to be speaking in God's name, the only means of determining the validity of what is being said is to return to the words, which we all agree, God DID say. That is the simplicity of sola-scriptura.
It really makes me wonder why the concept is fought so viciously today. [...] What are they afraid of?
That is as simple as can be: God didn't say what they propose in the past; ergo, it is not the truth today. Allowing the testimony of the Bible to be entered into the argument defeats them wholly.
A brilliant observation... And it is not remarkable only in the aspect that our opponents’ reasoning is nearly always circular. It must be, in order to sustain a belief which is faulty. One must always orbit around that fault, never getting too close, never confronting it head on.
Sola-scriptura is a simple matter to validate:
God said stuff. He said specifically what He likes, what He doesn’t like, and what He will do.
If someone comes along claiming to be speaking in God’s name, the only means of determining the validity of what is being said is to return to the words, which we all agree, God DID say. That is the simplicity of sola-scriptura.
It really makes me wonder why the concept is fought so viciously today. [...] What are they afraid of?
That is as simple as can be: God didn’t say what they propose in the past; ergo, it is not the truth today. Allowing the testimony of the Bible to be entered into the argument defeats them wholly.
INDEED.