[xzins]

There is a sort of logical error in using Bible scripture to argue sola scriptura is not Biblical. Well, since the Bible itself refers to unwritten teachings, enjoining their obedience, that puts the SS crowd in something of a pickle.

I'm not sure why that would be. I would say, "There's biblical authority for paying attention to this."

For other things, I'd say, "There's no biblical authority for paying attention to this."

[Cronos]

I'm not sure why that would be. I would say, "There's biblical authority for paying attention to this."

For other things, I'd say, "There's no biblical authority for paying attention to this."

Well, while by and large that is good and is the basis for verifying any point (i.e. the Holy Scriptures are what we need to use as verifying, inerrant point), it is also open to interpretation about what points are in biblical authority, namely one can say that there is biblical authority to pay attention to, I don't know, talking in tongues, or not. But it can still be subjective. I'll agree that it should be discussed in council, but leaving it up to individuals can lead to a plethora of opinions and divergent ways.