[Alex Murphy]

First, I must acknowledge that there is no explicit verse that directly settles this issue. At the same time, I don’t think that an explicit verse is necessary to prove that something is scriptural. I think that if a doctrine is implied in Scripture or logically follows from what we find in Scripture, and if there is nothing in Scripture that directly refutes it, then that belief can be considered scriptural.

[daniel1212]

if there is nothing in Scripture that directly refutes it, then that belief can be considered scriptural. I think most people agree with me on that point, but it bears repeating, especially when considering the Marian dogmas

Wrong, as we can just imagines where this hermeneutic would justify as doctrine(that being what is defended), from the Mormonic fantasy of the planet Kolob to Bingo in Heaven to Mary parting the Red Sea, making an axehead float, calling for a 3.=1/2 year drought, and walking on water. Etc.

While explicit support is not necessary for doctrine, as such may be established by the collective weight of precepts and the principal behind them, if not contradicted, yet the absence of anything in Scripture that directly refutes hardly warrants it, or absolves it as being contrary to Scripture.

[GeronL]

lol

[GeronL]

There will be Congressional hearings once they learn of this torturing of logic.