Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) is not a coherent doctrine

YOU SAY: "Christianity claims that putting your faith into Jesus to simply mediate salvation on your behalf after dying on the cross so that it may be so, is all that you need to have Salvation. No added book would ever change that in any circumstance, unless it refutes the very words of Jesus. I would in fact personally say you do not even need the Bible, but one Gospel, seeing how the rest of the New Testament is theology on Jesus and prophesy whereas the Old Testament only explains God's relationship with man, where we came from and prophesy on the one who would come who would save all from there sin." I RESPOND: How do we know that Christianity says this? You say that we only need one Gospel? Well how do you know? The problem is that you beg the question here. You assume two things that are not necessarily true: 1. The Bible is in fact the accurate source of Christian teaching at all (who says that its not Sola Tradition?) 2. The Bible in fact teaches this is how to be saved. The Catholic Church for instance teaches the sacraments are at least to some degree necessary. Jesus says "Unless a man be born again of water and the holy spirit" and He also says "unless a man eat my body and drink my blood you do not have life in you" and He says "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" etc. The point is that this is YOUR interpretation of the Bible, how do you know that it is accurate? At the end of the day, S.S. for you then is operating off of the assumption that all we need to be saved is faith in Christ. But this just begs the question- How do we know this is what the Bible teaches and how do we know that the Bible teaches the truth of Christianity? YOU SAY: "Although theology explains salvation for someone to better understand it and even obtain it easier, it isn't needed enough to add more scripture since the answer of what salvation is, why it exists and how to obtain it are all within the Bible." This too just begs the question. How do you know the Bible is complete? What if I say that God spoke to me just now and told me that we also need to drink 3 glasses of water a day while saying the Our Father at the same time to be saved? Maybe the Bible doesn't explain everything. Yet you can quote the Bible to prove that it does, but then your argument is circular. Now from what you have said so far it seems that S.S. cannot be defended completely. Anyway, I gave my arguments and you address them. Let's reevaluate. 1) You give a reason why the Bible can't claim S.S. as a doctrine. I agree 100%. BUT that supports me and not you. Let me put this in deductive format: 1. Either everything that is necessary for salvation is in the Bible or it isn't 2. What is written in the Bible is necessary for salvation 3. The fact that the Bible contains truths necessary for salvation is necessary for salvation (i.e. # 2 is necessary for salvation) 4. #2 is not in the Bible. Conclusion: It follows that everything that is necessary for salvation is not in fact in the Bible. Hence it doesn't matter why #2 is not in the Bible (it doesn't matter why premise 4 is correct) all that matters is THAT it is correct. You seem to agree with me and therefore should reject S.S. My second argument stands because you seem to implicitly agree. you said the books were "debated on which were necessary." This means someone was doing the debating. The ultimate decision as to what books were in the Bible was made by the people doing the debating. here is the problem however: If the books of the Bible are necessary for salvation, wouldn't by your logic it have to be in the Bible? Also, who has the authority to chose which books? A committee? One person? St. Paul? All Christians? Me? How do we know, does the Bible specify what authority? Even if it did, wouldn't that be circular reasoning? The most logical position is that Christ appointed someone with the authority to determine what books were in the Bible. Do you know when the Bible was compiled and who compiled it? My third argument needs to be rephrased: The point is how do we know that the Bible is inspired? we might be able to know that it is historically accurate, but how do we know that it is actually God's word. Maybe the Bible says it is God's word...but that begs the question because I could write right now on a Napkin "This is God's word" and it still wouldn't be. Some external source needs to say which books are God's word. Did Jesus ever specify? Maybe he appointed people to speak in His name? Finally, are you arguing that God's word is truly cryptic? That the only way God chose to teach people that which is necessary to be saved and not burn in hell was written even though for most of human history people were illiterate? Do you mean to say that God gave us such a cryptic message that perhaps he wants some to be damned? So cryptic that there exists thousands of denominations that can't come up with a common interpretation of the Bible? I find that hard to believe if God is truly a God of love. So to conclude, this is what I will say: My arguments against the logical nature of S.S. stand. What it comes down to is this: Believing in S.S. is all based on circular reasoning. You cannot believe in S.S without arguing from the Bible. You have to assume S.S. is true in order to prove it. This is circular reasoning and is flawed. How then is a Christian to trust the Bible? How are we to know? You can still believe that the Bible is the word of God. If this is your conviction and your faith, this is what you must do. This is what God wants! But at the same time, maybe it is better to rethink how God uses the Bible. Maybe the Bible is true but God doesn't tell us everything through the Bible. As St. Augustine says "But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me." Perhaps Tradition to interpret the Bible is better? Perhaps a Church to have the final say is the best? Maybe the Church that compiled the Bible? Anyway, Im getting off topic. The scope of this debate is not to argue that Catholic Christianity is the most accurate. I don't want to go down that road. I just don't want to give you the impression that one has to either accept S.S. or leave Christianity. one can accept scripture and Christ w/o believing in S.S. Your turn