It's really amazing what ignorance of a topic can do to apologists.
You may have read how Roman Catholics attempt to refute the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. We Evangelicals believe that the Bible alone is sufficient to function as the infallible rule of faith and morals for the church. But when Roman Catholics really do not know the doctrine that they are trying to refute... well, we can get some funny stuffs out of it:
Isahel Alfonso, Catholic Faith Defender:
Useful is not the same with sufficient for instance food is useful for our existence but it is not sufficient because we also need air and water. Scripture is useful but not sufficient because we also need an infallible interpreter the church.
Fr. Abraham Arganiosa, CRS:
The Church teaches that the Bible is SUFFICIENT but IT IS NOT THE 'ONLY' SUFFICIENT. Duon mali ang Sola Scriptura... tinuturo nila na Biblia lang ang sufficient. Bible-Alone... WALA YAN SA BIBLIA. (comments section)
[Translation of second and third sentences: There is where Sola Scriptura is wrong... they teach that the Bible alone is sufficient. Bible-Alone... that's not in the Bible.]
Then again, it makes me think that both of them know what is Sola Scriptura but both of them don't know about the Scriptures. Look at it this way guys, at least you both don't like Sola Scriptura. So feel free to refute it... at the expense of your comrades' position, that is.
Like I said, it's really amazing.
You may have read how Roman Catholics attempt to refute the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. We Evangelicals believe that the Bible alone is sufficient to function as the infallible rule of faith and morals for the church. But when Roman Catholics really do not know the doctrine that they are trying to refute... well, we can get some funny stuffs out of it:
Isahel Alfonso, Catholic Faith Defender:
Useful is not the same with sufficient for instance food is useful for our existence but it is not sufficient because we also need air and water. Scripture is useful but not sufficient because we also need an infallible interpreter the church.
Fr. Abraham Arganiosa, CRS:
The Church teaches that the Bible is SUFFICIENT but IT IS NOT THE 'ONLY' SUFFICIENT. Duon mali ang Sola Scriptura... tinuturo nila na Biblia lang ang sufficient. Bible-Alone... WALA YAN SA BIBLIA. (comments section)
[Translation of second and third sentences: There is where Sola Scriptura is wrong... they teach that the Bible alone is sufficient. Bible-Alone... that's not in the Bible.]
Then again, it makes me think that both of them know what is Sola Scriptura but both of them don't know about the Scriptures. Look at it this way guys, at least you both don't like Sola Scriptura. So feel free to refute it... at the expense of your comrades' position, that is.
Like I said, it's really amazing.
I still cannot understand what Fr. Abraham Arganiosa meant by saying "The Church teaches that the Bible is SUFFICIENT but IT IS NOT THE 'ONLY' SUFFICIENT". He won't even approved my comment in his site, perhaps he could not himself know how to explain such statement.
ReplyDeleteHow can something sufficient still appears not to be sufficient? Or an alternative way to see his statement is to say that "the Bible is not the only one that is sufficient, but other things are also sufficient on their own", so that would mean we get to choose which among the "sufficient things" we think appears to be sufficient to us. If that's the case, I'm choosing Scriptures as the sufficient source...over those alternative things that appear to be sufficient but in truth are not only sufficient but dangerous.
Yes, Fr. Abe statement "the Bible is sufficient but it is not the only sufficient" can be confusing if one were to seek sufficient truth.
ReplyDeleteMajority of the Roman Catholics argue that the Bible is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient. Meaning, the Bible is sufficient to support their doctrines but it cannot express some doctrine clearly. Thus, they are dependent on what their magisterium has to say to the extent that they just accept the interpretation without thinking.
I am sure Isahel Alfonso is one of those satanists who dupe the ignorant faithful into oblivion and into hell, by acting as an "apologist" in the guise of being a "Catholic Defender", but in reality, sowing confusion on what is traditionally being evangelized as the biblical truth.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, the guy's real nuts!!!