In article <9570F33D-F042-E521-E2CA-0282E2849DAD@srcbs.org>,
lsenders@hotmail.com says...

>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>> lsenders@hotmail.com writes:

>> >I wrote and sent of a lengthy reply to this post. I
>> >guess it must have got lost. I was hoping you had
>> >merely chosen not to post it until you could post a
>> >reply. Oh well.

>> What you describe is not my practice. If I recieve a
>> post that is on topic, I post it. If it's not, I attempt
>> to return it via email. This often fails for a host of
>> reasons. I checked my logs and can not find any record
>> of such a post from you.

>Its' been almost 8 yrs since I was involved with tech
>services. But I still haven't forgotten how it all works.
>I never intended any inference accusing you of any
>administrative mischief. Honestly, I leave these things in
>the Lord's hands.

No, Loren, you do not. If you really _did_ "leave these
things in the Lord's hands", you would have had NO motive to
say "I was hoping you had merely chosen not to post
.. until...". For such a 'hope' is _completely_
inconsistent with "leaving these things in the Lord's
hands".

>> One more time - my rejection of "sola Scriptura" is based
>> on the Scriptures. They refute it. The Scriptures
>> support *our* position, not yours.

>> As for a definitive list, I'll provide one as soon as you
>> can provide a definitive list of Scriptures, using ONLY
>> the Scriptures themselves.

>Is this how you reply to someone who asks you to prove that Jesus is
>real?

You protest below that you are 'honest', but this question is itself
proof of your dishonesty. For you did NOT "ask to prove that Jesus is
real". You asked something quite different. But here you play
"bait-and-switch" with the question. That is dishonest. Or do you not
even realize that "bait-and-switch" is dishonest?

>This sort of reply is really immature.

No, it is not. On the contrary: your insistence on playing
"bait-and-switch" leaves Steve with few other options.

Besides: rather than being 'immature', Steve's question is
the VERY question that exposes the Achilles' heel of the
mindless repetition of the "Sola Scriptura" slogan.

> It is also disrespectful.

Is it? Even if it is, it is not _nearly_ so disrespectful as
your game of "bait-and-switch".

> For I am honest in my search.

You may have fooled yourself into believing that, but you
cannot fool us.

> I have honestly sought out just what these "traditions"
>are which supersede the scriptures.

And as both Steve and I have pointed out, this is a leading
question: it assumes the wrong thing, which you then want to
use to accuse us of contradicting the Scriptures.

>IMHO, part of