[paladinan]

Pope Franky isn’t in there either. Just sayin’.

Just "sayin'", to someone who doesn't believe the false idea of "sola Scriptura", and to whom the standard isn't applicable. Making this comment of yours absolutely irrelevant to the point at hand. Just sayin'.

It never ceases to amaze me: when Catholics challenge "sola Scriptura", an embarrassingly large number of sola-Scriptura defenders immediately trot out at least two of the most mind-bogglingly illogical tropes:

1) "Show me where in Scripture [insert Catholic dogma, doctrine, practice, rumor attributed to Catholicism, urban legend attributed to Catholicism, etc.] appears!" (Um... the whole point is that no one HAS to "obey sola Scriptura in order to refute sola Scriptura" or "obey sola Scriptura in order to prove the Catholic Church's authority"... right? And Scripture itself never makes that claim, anyway. I would be just as entitled to insist that Protestants only use, as proofs, books of the Bible which mention the word "Christian"; that leaves "Acts" and "1 Peter", I think. Why on earth would anyone conjure up an artificial, man-made standard like that?)

2) "Scripture has THOUSANDS of places where people referred to use of the Scriptures!" (*headdesk* Yes, very good. Now, show which ones of these insist that we use Scripture ALONE... much less the 66-book Protestant Bible alone! I'll give you a hint: the number is less than "1".)

[Gamecock]

**And Scripture itself never makes that claim, anyway.**

There is a far, far, far stronger case in Scripture for Sola Scriptura than 95% (estimate) of Catholic doctrine that y’all claim to have found in Scripture.

Besides, did you see what happened up top? How Calvin didn’t even use Scripture to argue for Sola Scriptura? Care to dissect that?