lsenders@hotmail.com writes:
>Stephen M. Adams wrote in the thread on heresy:
>>
>> Fundamentally, the Scriptures do not teach (and in fact, contradict)
>> your position. As I noted before, you have taken the error that was
>> the source many (if not most) of the ancient heresies and dogmatized
>> it, and refuse to be corrected by the 200 year old witness of the
>> Church.
>>
>Elsewhere you referred to a previous post so I have taken the time to
>go back and read every one of your posts in that thread. I'm sorry,
>but I didn't read anything to the degree with which you are
>attributing.

I didn't say I had posted a lengthy detailed argument - just that the
statment was being repeated.

>Sola scriptura is predicated on the biblical revelation that man is
>totally blind and incapable of properly interpreting not only general
>revelation but special revelation as well.

If you are unable and incapable of interpreting the Scriptures, then
you can't possiby derive doctrine from them. In other words, if
your fundamental premise is that man is incapable of undestanding
the Scriptures, how then do you propose to know what they say???

That aside, the clear facts of the matter is that the Scriptures
themselves refute 'Sola Scriptura' as defined in my original post:

We teach that the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of
faith and practice

In plain english: 'Sola Scriptura' is NOT scriptural.

Try this test: define the canon of Scriptures using nothing but
Scipture, with no reference to anything else. After all, per
the above definition, reference to anything else introduces error
and thus cannot be taken as dogma.

If you don't agree with the above definition of "Sola Scriptura" then
please explicate what you DO blieve it means.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

nnalyd@yahoo.com wrote:

>>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
> (snipped and unread)
>
> until you can behave like a Christian let alone an adult I won't
> repsond or read your emotional rants.

If it was "snipped and unread", how do you know it was an
"emotional rant"? You're a liar (as all Trinity denier are.)


> all you have done is give
> further proof the trinity is satan's doctrine.


Hmmm...what a childish, emotional rant.

Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All post