Firstly, no, since S.S. Christians have to go by Scripture alone. Just give me one Biblical verse, please. If this is a fundamental rule of faith, there must be at least one explicit verse.
Secondly, my point is that I am a reformed Christian, meaning that I agree that those within the Christian Church needed much reform at the time of "the reformation", which was really doctrinal "deformation".
The true reformation was worked by those that were loyal to Christ. Though, I am no bigot. I see all true Christians as members of the Catholic Church, even if they have been confused by the S.S. doctrine or other a-historical propaganda given by those they had a right to trust.
I am also "reformed" in the sense that I know I deserve Hell. And for this, reason, I don't consider myself superior to anyone.
May we all come to the fulness of the constant, historic Christian faith.
P.S. Pilgrim Wrote:
No offense... really, I don't intend to make light of your statement-question, but don't you think it is rather self-contradictory? I mean you reject "Sola Scriptura" (grounds not provided) which is the doctrine that says the inspired, infallible and inerrant written Word of God, the Bible, is the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice. But, then you ask for verses from the very source which you reject as being ultimately authoritative.
Going by the Scriptures does not mean going by the Scriptures alone, unless you have a syllogism which shows otherwise. My point is not to prove my case at the moment, but to show that Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory, since it is not stated in Scripture.
I accept the Bible as history, and then from there deduce the whole picture of Jesus and teh Church, and the Church's Book, and that it is inerrant.
