[Arthur McGowan]

But those beliefs or items are not self-refuting.

The problem with “sola Scriptura” is not merely that it isn’t in Scripture. The problem is that because of what it asserts, it MUST be in Scripture in order for it to be true.

Since it is not in Scripture, it CAN’T be true.

And, since “sola Scriptura” CAN’T be true, none of the items on your list can be suspect merely because they aren’t in Scripture.

[CynicalBear]

>>it MUST be in Scripture in order for it to be true.<<

Why posit a false concept of what Sola Scriptura is?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"Since it is not in Scripture, it CAN’T be true."

This type of false logic has been examined and refuted many times. Here is one example. More at source that will help you further.

OBJECTION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.

REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.

But in fact, the argument should be of the form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

Best to you

[metmom]

ooops.

Well....

Bye now.....