Anti-Catholic Website

[CalCatholic]

Are any of you guys very familiar with this website: bible.ca/sola-scriptura-defended.htm

I don’t spend too much time on ‘rags’ like this, it burns up brain cells!

 

[ivebeenshown]

Their arguments are pitiful…

Sola Scriptura is proven by 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

No, it is not.

2 Tim 3:17 says that the scripture will “equip us for every good work”. It does not say that scripture will “equip us for MOST good works”. It does not say that scripture will “equip us PARTIALLY for good works”.

It does not say that scripture will equip us for every good work. It says that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

The KJV uses the imagery that scripture is able to “fully furnish” us for ever good work. Now imagine you rented an apartment and the ad said it was “fully furnished”. When you move in you know what fully furnished means. It has a bed, a couch, a fridge etc. Everything you need to live. If you walked in and it had not dresser drawers to put your clothes in, you would complain that it was not fully furnished! The scripture is able to fully furnish us for EVERY GOOD WORK.

This is a personal interpretation not drawn from the actual wording of the text, but instead from the personal agenda of the writer. The passage does not state that scripture is able to fully furnish one, rather, it states that “scripture is… profitable for teaching… so that the man of God may be… equipped for every good work.”

Meat is profitable for nutrition planning, so that man may be nourished for every physical activity. Does that mean a linebacker can fully perform his duty on a diet of nothing but meat? No! He needs fruit and potatoes to have a well-rounded diet and proper health.

Notice how the proponents of Sola Scriptura are nearly the worst at twisting Scripture to their own agenda?

 

[Justice_Mercy]

That site is not just anti-Catholic… practically everyone is a heretic according to that site. It is one of the oldest fundamentalist, conspiracy theory religious sites on the Net (there is one other that is in competition to it for the longest running religious kook site on the Net hehehe)

Anyone that uses that site to argue for or against something needs a more reliable source, IMHO.

 

[sedonaman]

Their arguments are pitiful…

No, it is not.

It does not say that scripture will equip us for every good work. It says that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

This is a personal interpretation not drawn from the actual wording of the text, but instead from the personal agenda of the writer. The passage does not state that scripture is able to fully furnish one, rather, it states that “scripture is… profitable for teaching… so that the man of God may be… equipped for every good work.”

Meat is profitable for nutrition planning, so that man may be nourished for every physical activity. Does that mean a linebacker can fully perform his duty on a diet of nothing but meat? No! He needs fruit and potatoes to have a well-rounded diet and proper health.

Notice how the proponents of Sola Scriptura are nearly the worst at twisting Scripture to their own agenda?

The best argument against sola scriptura I’ve encountered is the fact that the Bible does not specify which books constitute a legitimate Bible. So, using solo scriptura, you can’t get there from here. Just scanning, I couldn’t find any reference to that argument in that website.

Also, I have an issue with those who say, “Think for yourself.” Do we think for ourselves when we have a serious medical problem? Not only that but there are billions of people on the earth, and if they all thought for themselves, they would each come up with a different interpretation. Is there only one message from God, or many that are tailored for each individual?

 

[ivebeenshown]

The best argument against sola scriptura I’ve encountered is the fact that the Bible does not specify which books constitute a legitimate Bible. So, using solo scriptura, you can’t get there from here. Just scanning, I couldn’t find any reference to that argument in that website.

I couldn’t either, though I did find a section adamant in its insistence that because the books of the NT were written and in circulation before 100AD, the canon must just be right.

Also, I have an issue with those who say, “Think for yourself.” Do we think for ourselves when we have a serious medical problem? Not only that but there are billions of people on the earth, and if they all thought for themselves, they would each come up with a different interpretation. Is there only one message from God, or many that are tailored for each individual?

Not to mention Holy Scriptures say that God appoints teachers in his Church.

 

[bmonk]

I couldn’t either, though I did find a section adamant in its insistence that because the books of the NT were written and in circulation before 100AD, the canon must just be right.

Not to mention Holy Scriptures say that God appoints teachers in his Church.

Yes, there were many books written by A.D. 100. Some of them made it into the Canon. How does he know which ones to choose? Or does he just happen to pick those that the Church chose?

Furthermore, what text is inspired? Which translation? Is it the text we have now, the original text as written, or a specific translation? (As often as I’ve asked Evangelicals which text they consider the definitive text, so I might know where they stand, not one has answered me.)