[FamiliarFace]

If “sola scriptura” were actually words in the Bible, then I would be more open to the idea of it being credible.

[JRandomFreeper]

If “sola scriptura” were actually words in the Bible

Which part? The part written in Hebrew? Or the part written in Aramaic?

Wait... it wasn't written in latin...

/johnny

[driftdiver]

“If “sola scriptura” were actually words in the Bible, then I would be more open to the idea of it being credible.”

So your argument is that since its not in the Bible the concept isn’t biblical. Therefor we should look to other writings which are also not in the Bible.

[ROTB]

If “sola scriptura” were actually words in the Bible, then I would be more open to the idea of it being credible.

***

That’s like saying, “If ‘Trinity’ were actually a word in the Bible, then I would be more open to the idea of it being credible.”

Do a study on ...

1) The “Word of God”
2) The “Word of the Lord”

[cantfindagoodscreenname]

If “sola scriptura” were actually words in the Bible, then I would be more open to the idea of it being credible.

If you're using that as your yardstick for measuring credibility, you'll have to throw out the papacy. The word "Pope" isn't in the Bible, either.

[Salvation]

But it’s not in the Bible, is it? In fact, in three places the Bible tells us that it is incomplete because of so many things to write down.

[RBStealth]

Reason #22 not to believe in Sola Scriptura:
Jehovahs Witnesses