While surfing on CF reading a theologial debate I ran across the argument that just because something may be scripturally based doesn't mean it's scripturally sound. It struck me as yet another technique to get around the glaring problems associated with biblical literalism, inerrancy and sola scriptura. So-called "revealed religion" must have a way to validate propositional truths. Ultimately, sound docrine is determined by whichever external religious authority proclaims something enough times and with enough solemnity that others begin to believe it. Either that or the one's with the power of the state behind them get to legislate their theology. Why then even bother debating fellow christians using the bible when everybody knows that being scripturally based is not enough? Many people who claim they don't follow the vanities of men actually needed a preacher or pope to decide for them what is scripturally sound. 
