Case in point: if the Bible doesn't teach "sola Scriptura" (i.e. the Bible repeatedly says that it's important and necessary, but it never says that it's the SOLE rule of Faith... nor does it ever say that it was ever DESIGNED to be used ALONE), then isn't it illogical of you to promote sola Scriptura? Scripture does teach that it is adequate for the believer.
BTW, no it is not mind reading to state the RC's try to make others look bad. How I know that RC's do that is obvious from the comments most of them make when they attack the messenger instead of addressing the message.
And if you're worried about people making digs at each other, be an equal opportunity chastiser. Post the same to your Catholic colleagues when they take digs at others.
Tell me. Why is God breathed Holy Spirit inspired Scripture NOT authoritative, the standard by which truth claims should be measured, the rule of faith, and enough for equipping every believer completely, making him equppied for EVERY good work?
Scripture does teach that it is adequate for the believer.
Three replies to that:
1) No, it doesn't.
2) "Adequate" for *what*, exactly? Your statement is very vague.
3) So it's not adequate for an unbeliever (say, for bringing him to Christ)?
BTW, no it is not mind reading to state the RC's try to make others look bad. How I know that RC's do that is obvious from the comments most of them make when they attack the messenger instead of addressing the message.
Mm-hmm. And you don't think that you (and other anti-Catholic-Church people on this board) are guilty of the same? I'd gently suggest otherwise, friend... as this thread shows, among others.
And if you're worried about people making digs at each other, be an equal opportunity chastiser. Post the same to your Catholic colleagues when they take digs at others.
So THAT'S the excuse you're going to give the Lord Jesus at the end of time? "It was okay for me to take digs at others, because other people took digs at me"? I must have missed the part where the Bible recommends that for the believer. But this is even worse: Show me where, even once, FatherOfFive took "digs" at you; otherwise, you're excusing your un-Christian behavior to him based on the idea that OTHER Catholics took digs at you. Not exactly fair, is it? How about you just knock off the insults to others, no matter what anyone else does, eh?
Tell me. Why is God breathed Holy Spirit inspired Scripture NOT authoritative,
It *is* authoritative... and after your many discussions with me (and with other Catholics) and the many urgings to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (so that you'd at least know what you're attacking), you should know that fact, full well. Scripture is unspeakably authoritative; it just isn't designed to work ALONE, nor does it claim to do so. (This is to say nothing of the edited/expurgated 66-book version of the Bible which I assume you use.)
the standard by which truth claims should be measured
Chapter and verse, please... and I'd like that specific quote, and not simply a hopeful, spin-ful interpretation of a vague verse. When last I checked, the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth was the CHURCH (see 1 Timothy 3:15).
the rule of faith
Scripture reference, please?
and enough for equipping every believer completely, making him equppied for EVERY good work?
I assume you're referencing 2 Timothy 3:16-17? In the RSV, it says the following:
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Where does it say that Scripture is SUFFICIENT for these purposes, or that it's capable of doing this ALONE? It says that Scripture is PROFITABLE, not that it's solely sufficient. But in case that doesn't convince you, look at the Book of St. James:
And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. (James 1:4)
Perhaps you can explain to me why St. James says that STEADFASTNESS (not Scripture) will make one *perfect* (Gk. "teleois": a far stronger word than 2 Timothy 3:16-17 uses) and lacking in NOTHING? Should I start a movement called "sola stabilitas" (steadfastness alone)? I hardly think so... but I'd have a better case for it than you have for using 2 Timothy to prove "sola Scriptura"...