If Sola Scriptura is true

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me. He said:

The Bible is the ultimate infallible source of what you need to be justified.

And in the same paragraph he said this:
C Thomas:

So scripture is the ultimate authority, although it does not follow that anybody needs to read it [scripture] to be saved

So in fact, I regret to suggest to you that your interpretation of what I am doing is incorrect.

SyCarl:

Justification = salvation

I know what justification is, Mr Carl. But thank you so much for clarifying.

SyCarl:

It useless to try to discuss something when you see only what you want to see

Indeed it is, Mr Carl.

SyCarl:

pick out of post only what suits you

Very perceptive. An example of this picking out of a post only what suits one would be what you selected from the beginning of that paragraph while omitting the conclusion from the end of the very same paragraph. Right?

SyCarl:

and are incapable of understanding something you don’t agree with.

Mr Carl, I have been asking for clarification and logic from the get go. I have offered lines of reasoning, quotes, and links from the get go. I have asked for clarification from the get go. You have not done the same. To insinuate that*** I*** am incapable of understanding something I don’t agree with is unjustified; moreover it is an ad hominem attack and against the forum rules.

Normally folks make ad hominem attacks when they have not demonstrated their point of view and when they have exhausted substantive proof of their point of view. When this happens, it generally means that they have conceded the discussion.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

It matters little that he agreed with your 3 line summary.

It matters a lot that he agreed with my 3 line summary. Why? Because we were in a discussion. He offered information. I checked to see if I had understood him correctly. He accepted my 3 line summary.

Contrast that with you making claims which are either unclear or unsupported and my asking you for clarification and support and you not offering them but choosing to tautologize instead.

SyCarl:

He said what I quoted.

He also said what ***I ***quoted.

SyCarl:

I agree he also said that it is the only source of infallible doctrine. The two statements are not mutually exclusive and are both true.

What I am asking you, Mr Carl, is two things:

If you are going to make claims, please back them up with explanations, lines of reasoning and, if necessary quotes and links instead of asking us to accept what you say at face value because you have said them. OK?

I have asked you if you believe that doctrine and salvation are the same thing. Are they?

SyCarl:

Scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine. Scripture also contains everything that is needed for salvation (justification).

Is Scripture the only infallible source of what is needed for Salvation?

SyCarl:

I disagree with you and you disagree with me. I will leave it at that.

Mr Carl, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with a point of view. It has everything to do with your posts not being clear and with your decisions to not support your claims with lines of reasoning – and quotes and links if necessary.

Now I know that you know how to quote, Mr Carl. You have after all selectively quoted from the beginning Mr Thomas’s paragraph while leaving off the end, haven’t you? Why did you not quote material to support your numerous unsupported and often unclear claims?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

God said that he was “I Am”.

God is always continual.

Isn’t the point of salvation to be like God?

If that is so then why would justification be Instanteous Only?

 

[estesbob]

.

Scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine.
**Scripture also contains everything that is needed for salvation (justification). **

.

And you base that on what?