Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) is not a coherent doctrine

To your first response, we know this because Christians, ever since the creation of the Bible, considered what you're considering now. Scholars always look into other writings but again they are either useless in the sense of S.S. (for one to find salvation; even the apocrypha held by the Catholics isn't necessary for salvation. I would give a reference but it seems anyone who wishes to demonize the Catholic addition to the Bible is a biased Protestant making the good points turn to stupidity), and no other books or letters are suggested to be included in the Bible. If I were wrong on the previous sentence you would find at least one good lead from a scholar if you search "what/books the Bible should include" on Google. 1. If the Bible were tradition we would have absolutely nothing to trust since the church would be defined by the "tradition" of the Bible and the "tradition" of whatever else they do. 2. I apologize for not including baptism. I only assumed a Christian who believed in Jesus would at least want to take the dunk of happiness. But this is even debated as well. But baptism is even debated as well, a man in his last week of life might accept Christ, schedule a baptism and get hit by a car before the date. Would a God that claimed he love all and showed no partiality send him to hell because he did not do one thing in the laws of the Bible (concerning salvation) which Jesus said he freed you from through Grace? But this leads to a different debate and is getting off topic. And interpretation belongs not only specifically but generically as well. If one were to have the same interpretation as the members of his church, would he not be more confident there is some inspiration from God (which was promised) through interpreting the Bible? And once again we know this is what the Bible teaches because there is nothing else other than contradicting doctrines and Christian theology, of whom read the Bible and gave their own personal interpretation for others to read if they did so wish. I'm sorry but I really don't know what you hope to accomplish with asking if the Bible is complete. If there was a fourth round I would ask you "what in the world would you add to it?" And if you said God spoke to you and you shared it with others, just what do you think people (especially Christians) would say to you? The Bible wasn't written with small direct inspirations; if it is in fact true, it was founded on the Red Sea opening a passage across it, a pitiful nation destroying every single opponent it faced and I guess a Son of God coming back from the dead. I agree with you on the skepticism on if the Bible is true or not, but we've already had watchdogs for four centuries. Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa "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." I'm sorry but I can't leave that alone, I don't care who is reading the debate. Did you seriously just evaluate the circumstance of the debate from the most biased point of view one can evaluate it from (the one arguing). Goodness man that's like Hitler saying "Sorry Jews but the fact you aren't the cause to every problem I face just can't be defended. Let's reevaluate, I hate you and you're going to the camps." 1) You said this wasn't about whether or not Christianity is true. Sola Scriptura says all you need for salvation is the Bible by using deductive reasoning to find what you need, not all you need to defend the Bible is the Bible. 4. There isn't enough in the Bible for salvation? Sounds to me like either a loving God was lying the whole time about having grace or there is absolutely no reason to be a Christian. I apologize but saying this is suggested those who use the Bible in Christianity are not saved, because of the fact they do not have enough to be saved. In the paragraph evaluating your second argument you say I "implicitly" agree with you. And yet I do not seeing how I have already said "And yes, (concerning the different cultures and edits of the Bible), most Christians understand the Bible is inspired by God and written by man. Not spoken by God through man." Just because the Bible was written by, edited by and organized by the imperfect man in no way suggests the Bible isn't all you need. Just because it is not infallible does not mean that it is wrong. I am not responding to your rephrased third argument (not because I can't, but because...), this is not about whether or not Christianity is true (whether or not the Bible is actually inspired by God). This is about Sola Scriptura. I would say otherwise if there were any books to look to other than the Bible (and modern theology is not included in the criteria since the are written by first getting as much influence from the Bible as possible) (Finally paragraph) It doesn't matter if one was illiterate, since they would need someone who knew the Bible to learn what it said. Otherwise the illiterate person would never of heard of Jesus. And yes it's cryptic. Consider Christianity was true and look around. How many questions and arguments haven't been answered yet in the world by Christians? Countless, whereas if God were to be completely non-cryptic we wouldn't even question if God was real or not. And calling God not a God of Love is another debate. But I will give a brief open statement anyways. One should condemn God anyways just because every sin that is committed is allowed to happen by God. So God is either a lier or a planner. Many things happen in someone's life that are absolute garbage but in the end lead to something good. For example someone may lose a high school sweetheart marriage, and find the true love of their life. But then you will say God is evil because he could easily make a life without all these things that hurt us. And yet he promised us one, why we have to go through this life no one knows because it has never been in the Bible. Anything else argued against God is an attempt to put him to your own standards of morality when, if he were real, he is so much more intelligent than we will ever be and may have a plan of his own. One ancient theologian (I don't remember who) stated that if there were a compassionate God, this is the best possible life. For reasons unknown at this time at least. To close, your argument revolves around S.S. being "circular reasoning." You said the Bible cannot support itself because it is in fact the argument. The Bible is all you need for S.S. and non-biblical texts (things like http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org...) are all you need to confirm the Bible. If it is not enough for the individual then I would welcome him to the world for the first time. [on a side note, I personally would be a Catholic seeing as how they come from the first church (but as does in a since every church). But the Catholic Church uniquely form their tradition on the basis that their Pope is infallible. Many support it with the Bible and many bash the supporters, I personally don't believe the supporters and wouldn't want to follow the founding church that changed so drastically from what it once was.]