Is the bible all we need 1

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

As expected.

But not conclusive in that Judas was replaced by Matthias but no one was chosen to replace James (Acts 12:1).

If Apostolic Succession was supposed to be a pattern set forth by Jesus, then why are we not shown more than one Apostle being replaced? One instance does not a pattern make.

I don’t know where to start…you say that Matthias replacing Judas was not conclusive?! It’s MUCH more conclusive than ANY evidence provided for sola scriptura!

I am going to ask questions like you have asked:

If sola scriptura was supposed to be set forth by Jesus, then why are we not shown anywhere of Him commissioning the apostles to write something down? (However He does tell them to preach, and He does tell them to forgive sins, He does say that they must eat His Body and Blood, He does talk about building His Church, etc.)

And let me ask you again: What proof do you have that George Washington was President? Lincoln? Kennedy? How do you know that Bush is the successor to Clinton?

Pax.

 

[EA_Man]

E.E.N.S.:

I don’t know where to start…you say that Matthias replacing Judas was not conclusive?! It’s MUCH more conclusive than ANY evidence provided for sola scriptura!

I am going to ask questions like you have asked:

If sola scriptura was supposed to be set forth by Jesus, then why are we not shown anywhere of Him commissioning the apostles to write something down? (However He does tell them to preach, and He does tell them to forgive sins, He does say that they must eat His Body and Blood, He does talk about building His Church, etc.)

And let me ask you again: What proof do you have that George Washington was President? Lincoln? Kennedy? How do you know that Bush is the successor to Clinton?

Pax.

You need to read your Bible more closely, brother. The NT writers are continually referring back to Scripture. A cursory search of the Gospels in the NIV on BibleGateway.com turned up 25 occurances of the phrase “it is written” and many, many more instances of other variations and formulations of appeals to Scripture can be found. Jesus Himself made appeals to the written Word many times.

This demonstrates a PATTERN. One Apostolic replacement does not demonstrate an ongoing mechanism for church leadership succession. And even if it did, how were the rigged elections and other papal controversies of the middle ages reflective of the accord with which Matthias was ‘elected’ to replace Judas?

Writing down the words of Jesus or the teachings of the Apostles was the natural way to preserve those teachings as oral communication suffers from an extremely high decay rate.

As far as your questions are concerned, I can consult any number of resources that have proven reliable for historical information to have a high degree of confidence that when they all agree they must, barring a super-conspiracy, be correct.

Peace

 

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

You need to read your Bible more closely, brother. The NT writers are continually referring back to Scripture. A cursory search of the Gospels in the NIV on BibleGateway.com turned up 25 occurances of the phrase “it is written” and many, many more instances of other variations and formulations of appeals to Scripture can be found. Jesus Himself made appeals to the written Word many times.

This demonstrates a PATTERN. One Apostolic replacement does not demonstrate an ongoing mechanism for church leadership succession. And even if it did, how were the rigged elections and other papal controversies of the middle ages reflective of the accord with which Matthias was ‘elected’ to replace Judas?

Writing down the words of Jesus of the teachings of the Apostles was the natural way to preserve those teachings as oral communication suffers from an extremely high decay rate.

As far as your questions are concerned, I can consult any number of resources that have proven reliable for historical information to have a high degree of confidence that when they all agree they must, barring a super-conspiracy, be correct.

Peace

So, because Jesus referred to the OT (in fulfilling the prophecy) this means that He wanted the apostles to write a book and use this for the sole rule of faith? Then why didn’t He just say so? Then why all this other stuff about preaching, forgiving sins, eating His Body, etc? You seem disregard the very things Jesus DID say to do, while instilling an idea that was never even mentioned in Scripture at all? And if it were so important, and if it were to be the only means of faith, then why did it take so long before even the first letter was written?

 

[Philthy]

The challenge:
E.E.N.S.:

I am going to ask questions like you have asked:
If sola scriptura was supposed to be set forth by Jesus, then why are we not shown anywhere of Him commissioning the apostles to write something down?

The response

EA_Man:

The NT writers are continually referring back to Scripture. This demonstrates a PATTERN.

I presume you neglected to preface your response with “there is no indication in Scripture that additional Scripture was coming, however…” and then follow with your thoughts on patterns. I think we were looking for additional Scripture forthcoming, not whether the OT was referenced. As has already been covered, tradition through word of mouth was operative and has evidence in Scripture.

EA_Man:

Writing down the words of Jesus or the teachings of the Apostles was the natural way to preserve those teachings as oral communication suffers from an extremely high decay rate.

Yes, but oral communication has the advantage of verbal exchange - like a living Magisterium. If someone doesn’t understand what you have said they can say, “You mean all I have to do is believe once and I’m saved forever - even if…” and the speaker can then articulate further the full meaning of the original statement as it applies to the misunderstandings of the listener. Such is not the case for a rather haphazard collection of writings such as the NT. Much of the language is descriptive and ambiguous, rather than affirmative. Leaving such writing to the individual interpreter will NATURALLY result in multiple interpretations.
Peace

In short, you never answered the question.

Blessings,

Phil

 

[Sherlock]

I haven’t followed this thread in its entirety, only reading the last few posts. Just my two cents worth: in answer to the initial question, No—the Bible is not all we need. When I was in my Protestant years, I could go to Bethlehem Baptist and hear the very eloquent John Piper, and afterwards go down the street to a Lutheran, Methodist, or “free” Evangelical church and hear an entirely different interpretation, sometimes contradictory. About the only thing that all agreed upon was that Catholics were wrong, which after a while was impossible not to notice. Clearly, if the Bible is all we need, and the Holy Spirit will guide us into the truth it contains, then the Holy Spirit is doing a lousy job.
All the diversionary argy-bargy-ing about the papacy notwithstanding, sola scriptura has shown itself to be a dismal failure as a safeguard of the idea of absolute truth. And I see (predictably enough, as I used to do it myself when Protestant) the pitting of select verses against other verses as a way to prove one’s point, instead of taking the Bible as a whole.
It doesn’t work. Nor does it explain why the Catholic position is wrong: if you’re so sure that the Bible is all we need, and that the Holy Spirit will do the rest, then on what basis can you say that the Holy Spirit ISN’T guiding Catholics? Why is the Catholic interpretation wrong, and yours right? We’re looking at the Bible and the Holy Spirit is telling us that we’ve got a papacy and apostolic succession—by what authority do you say that the Holy Spirit is guiding you to truth, and Catholics to falsehood?

 

[Kay_Cee]

kaycee:

Well, before you nod off resting, it seems you are beating the heck out of a straw man! You definition of sola Scriptura is way off and quite illogical! Scripture alone does not mean it is devoid of its Author!

ps 138:2 “I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.” De 4:2 - “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.”

It is Scripture and God, the Holy Spirit! Your straw man would have Moses demanding that GOD prove the commandments were authoratative by refereing only to the commandmentsl???

God spoke thru a donkey! Was the donkey Infallible!

Do you believe “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Is this scripture not true?

I was not using a straw man. I was using the definition of sola scripture that **you **gave me. See post 87 above.

You’re quoting from the Bible again, but you have yet to tell me where scripture says those particular books are scripture at all. Your definition does say that “all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture.” Well, knowing what is and what is not scripture is one of those “all things necessary.”

 

[Kay_Cee]

EA_Man:

This argument is based upon oversimplication. My advice is that you gain a better understanding of what Sola Scriptura is and what it is not.

Your argument is against a straw man.

Peace

kaycee gave me a definition of sola scriptura. Am I not supposed to use it?

 

[StCsDavid]

eakswim:

I am in conversation with a baptist friend and they posed the following and I am not sure how to answer all these questions?
can someone help?
**Yes, we believe that the Bible is all anyone needs, and it is the final authority for us and our church. I trust that this will answer the questions that you have regarding our stand upon the Bible, and why we make such strong statements about the Bible. **

FIRST, 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17 TEACHES THAT THE SCRIPTURE IS SUFFICIENT FOR FAITH AND PRACTICE.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS.”

The Scripture alone is given by inspiration of God and is able to make the man of God perfect. Obviously nothing else is needed, then, beyond the Scripture.

So how does your friend responde to the fact that Timothy’s letter was written prior to the Gospels? In fact at the time these letters were written, the The Bible as we know it wasn’t even assembled, so how could he be referencing something that didn’t exist? This passage was a reference to sacred Hebrew scripture (Old Testament) which is indeed profitable for one to follow. Notice he didn’t say it was the only thing one should follow.

 

[kaycee]

Kay Cee:

kaycee gave me a definition of sola scriptura. Am I not supposed to use it?

Certainly the normative operation of the Church is implied (once scripture is complete and Apostles gone). The Word as given to the Apostles before being penned would fall into the same category of being God Breathed! No one is really saying only Scripture, EVEN before Scripture is penned!

 

[kaycee]

StCsDavid:

So how does your friend responde to the fact that Timothy’s letter was written prior to the Gospels? In fact at the time these letters were written, the The Bible as we know it wasn’t even assembled, so how could he be referencing something that didn’t exist? This passage was a reference to sacred Hebrew scripture (Old Testament) which is indeed profitable for one to follow. Notice he didn’t say it was the only thing one should follow.

It certainly is a principle that was valid then and now.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS.”

What do you not agree with in 2 Tim 3:16.17?

 

[kaycee]

Sherlock:

I haven’t followed this thread in its entirety, only reading the last few posts. Just my two cents worth: in answer to the initial question, No—the Bible is not all we need. When I was in my Protestant years, I could go to Bethlehem Baptist and hear the very eloquent John Piper, and afterwards go down the street to a Lutheran, Methodist, or “free” Evangelical church and hear an entirely different interpretation, sometimes contradictory. About the only thing that all agreed upon was that Catholics were wrong, which after a while was impossible not to notice. Clearly, if the Bible is all we need, and the Holy Spirit will guide us into the truth it contains, then the Holy Spirit is doing a lousy job.

Certainly evangelical protestants have differences, but a clear majority of them would aggree on the major doctines of the Faith! This need to have lockstep unity is not the understanding of the early church. Even so, the RC church still has factions, traditionalists, liberals, Feenie types, latin only, etc… The so called unity is imposed by definition because it is one organization! The comparisons to protestants are unfair as well. You are comparing one organization (RCC) to many others (various protestant denoms). A fair comparison would be RCC compared to Southern Baptists. Do differences in smaller issues like pre mil versus post mil REALLY need to have lockstep unity? Did the LORD’s command us to be in lockstep unity or to evangelize the world?

 

[Kay_Cee]

kaycee:

Certainly the normative operation of the Church is implied (once scripture is complete and Apostles gone).

Where does scripture say that once the normative operation of the Church begins sola scriptura applies? Where does scripture say that scripture is complete?

The Word as given to the Apostles before being penned would fall into the same category of being God Breathed!

I agree that oral Tradition is God-breathed. But nowhere does scripture say that eventually oral Tradition would be crystallized in scripture.

No one is really saying only Scripture, EVEN before Scripture is penned!

I did not claim that you did. But the canon was formed *after *scripture was penned. The canon is still something that is necessary to know or else why should we not include The Gospel of Thomas?

 

[Sherlock]

kaycee:

Certainly evangelical protestants have differences, but a clear majority of them would aggree on the major doctines of the Faith! This need to have lockstep unity is not the understanding of the early church. Even so, the RC church still has factions, traditionalists, liberals, Feenie types, latin only, etc… The so called unity is imposed by definition because it is one organization! The comparisons to protestants are unfair as well. You are comparing one organization (RCC) to many others (various protestant denoms). A fair comparison would be RCC compared to Southern Baptists. Do differences in smaller issues like pre mil versus post mil REALLY need to have lockstep unity? Did the LORD’s command us to be in lockstep unity or to evangelize the world?

You’re missing the point. The Catholic Church may have certain “factions”, but there is a standard by which one can measure said factions against to determine if they are heterodox or orthodox. If one is persistently heterodox despite being advised of Church doctrine, then one is dissenting. Because, as Paul says, the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth”, and Jesus promised to be with it, the Church provides a reliable guide. So, the “cafeteria/Liberal” Catholics can be called what they are: heterodox. The Feenneyites can be called what they are: heterodox. And the heterodox don’t represent orthodox Church teaching, the orthodox do.But, there is no authority, no measure by which the Baptist can say that the Lutheran is heterodox. After all, they’re both using the same guide (Scripture) and both claim the Holy Spirit’s guidance. When the Lutheran and the Baptist disagree, how can the Bible be used to determine which one is right? Or can they both be right? If so, then there’s no such thing as objective truth, but rather a number of personally though no doubt deeply held subjective opinions about what the Bible says.

Sorry, but when you write: "Certainly evangelical protestants have differences, but a clear majority of them would aggree on the major doctines of the Faith! ", you are not accurate. I’ve been there; I know. There are MAJOR differences in the various denominations about very, very essential matters such as salvation, baptism, etc. The different churches I attended would not have even agreed about what was a major vs. a minor doctrine of faith. Even within the Evangelical tradition alone, I have some friends who do not attend services or refrain from labor on Sunday (no outside indication of their faith shows whatsoever), while another Evangelical insists (because that’s what she is told) that public worship and refraining from labor is CRUCIAL. These are within, ostensibly, the same tradition!

You wrote: “This need to have lockstep unity is not the understanding of the early church.”

“Lockstep unity” is a derogatory term as you are using it here. Within orthodoxy, there is considerable freedom. To be honest, I found the Catholic orthodoxy to be far freer for the mind than, say, the Baptist church that I used to go to. They seemed to require “lockstep unity” in non-essentials, but since what was “essential” was not the same as the Evangelical Covenant church down the street, or the Lutheran church a few blocks further, hey, who could really say how salvation was achieved? As for the early Church—having read the Church Fathers somewhat, one thing does stand out—they were Catholic. I would suggest reading Newman’s “Essays on the Development of Chrsitian Doctrine”. It may help you to understand the development of doctrine more thoroughly. So, drop the “lockstep unity” strawman.

 

[Church_Militant]

kaycee:

Certainly the normative operation of the Church is implied (once scripture is complete and Apostles gone). The Word as given to the Apostles before being penned would fall into the same category of being God Breathed! No one is really saying only Scripture, EVEN before Scripture is penned!

It certainly is a principle that was valid then and now.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS.”

What do you not agree with in 2 Tim 3:16.17?

I’ll answer these two sequential posts from Kaycee with this one.

1. But there is nowhere in the NT that says that the apostles would be “gone”, in fact it says something else alltogether.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; 14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive. 15 But doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity.

And again: 1st Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member. 28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? 30 Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But be zealous for the better gifts. And I shew unto you yet a more excellent way.

In searching the Word of God I find nothing to indicate that there will be a time in the church without apostles, so I wonder how you resolve that with your own thinking concerning the modern church, not to mention the historic church? The NT does not support your idea that there will only be 13 or 14 apostles (counting Matthias and Paul) and then no more.

1. Certainly Catholics agree with this passage of the NT, but we agree with what it says, and not what you have read into it to support Sola Scriptura. St. Paul says that the Bible is given by inspiration of God and that it is (important word here) “profitable” for all the things he then lists, but does he say that it is all sufficient for these and all else. No.

It’s as simple as that Kaycee. The NT does not say that it is the all sufficient source of all that Christians believe. In fact it plainly says in the last two chapters of the Gospel of John (John 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

And again: 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.) that not all that Jesus said and did is written down in the Bible. Now did the apostles remain silent concerning these things as they discipled the ECF, apparently not since their writings show that the likes of Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and Clement tell us things that they learned from them and handed on to us in their teachings. His is particularly important with reference to the Eucharistic teachings of the Church, which their writings prove to be like our own today.

These teachings do not replace the Word of God, but they certainly inform our reading of it with clear guides as to what the early church said the Bible meant.

Finally, one has to take all things in context. What does the NT say is the foundation of all Christian truth?

1st Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Pax tecum,

 

[kaycee]

Church Militant:

1. But there is nowhere in the NT that says that the apostles would be “gone”, in fact it says something else alltogether.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; In searching the Word of God I find nothing to indicate that there will be a time in the church without apostles, so I wonder how you resolve that with your own thinking concerning the modern church, not to mention the historic church? The NT does not support your idea that there will only be 13 or 14 apostles (counting Matthias and Paul) and then no more. Strange then that the Catholic church does not have Apostles, Prophets, or Evangelists.

1. Certainly Catholics agree with this passage of the NT, but we agree with what it says, and not what you have read into it to support Sola Scriptura. St. Paul says that the Bible is given by inspiration of God and that it is (important word here) “profitable” for all the things he then lists, but does he say that it is all sufficient for these and all else. No.

2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work.”

Not sure what you mean by sufficient for all else. I am not expecting instruction on house framing to be included. It appears the text is saying that the man of God is fully equipped and complete with the God Breathed scripture. Not sure how the obvious can mean anything else.

It’s as simple as that Kaycee. The NT does not

say that it is the all sufficient source of all that Christians believe. In fact it plainly says in the last two chapters of the Gospel of John (John 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. While a listing of the additional miracles of Jesus would be wonderful to read about, the text says nothing about new or missing doctrines. The text plainly states that the recorded signs are written for our belief that we may have life in His name! To infer anything else is wrenching away the plain meaning of the text. Apparently the Holy Spirit did not feel the need to record additional signs.

And again: 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written

.) that not all that Jesus said and did is written down in the Bible. Now did the apostles remain silent concerning these things as they discipled the ECF, apparently not since their writings show that the likes of Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and Clement tell us things that they learned from them and handed on to us in their teachings. His is particularly important with reference to the Eucharistic teachings of the Church, which their writings prove to be like our own today.

These teachings do not replace the Word of God, but they certainly inform our reading of it with clear guides as to what the early church said the Bible meant.

Finally, one has to take all things in context. What does the NT say is the foundation of all Christian truth?

1st Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Pax tecum,

**Ps 119:89 - Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. **

John17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth."

Col 1:5 - "because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the Gospel"

2Ti 2:15 - “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling **the word of truth.” **

The Church upholds the Jesus and the Word of GOD as the Truth. The church has no charter add to the truth!

"What more shall i teach you than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought… Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher." Augustine, De bono viduitatis

 

[E.E.N.S]

kaycee:

It certainly is a principle that was valid then and now.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS.”

What do you not agree with in 2 Tim 3:16.17?

16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

16 “All scripture,”… Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.

 

[E.E.N.S]

St. Jerome, the very man who had much to do with bringing us Scripture as we know it, says:

“Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law” (*The Dialogue Against the Luciferians *8 A.D. 382]). - Jerome

 

[kaycee]

16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
16 “All scripture,”… Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.

Where in this verse are these attributes of God Breathed Scripture limited to the Old Testament? Peter knew Pauls writings were scripture. “All Scripture” has these attributes, there is no time limit!

Are you saying that John’s later letters do not have these attributes?

Why would “oral tradition” needed when the God Breathed scripture fully equips the man of God?

"What more shall i teach you than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought… Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher." Augustine, De bono viduitatis

 

[E.E.N.S]

kaycee:

Where in this verse are these attributes of God Breathed Scripture limited to the Old Testament? Peter knew Pauls writings were scripture. “All Scripture” has these attributes, there is no time limit!

Are you saying that John’s later letters do not have these attributes?

Why would “oral tradition” needed when the God Breathed scripture fully equips the man of God?

"What more shall i teach you than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought… Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher." Augustine, De bono viduitatis

Silly girl, Scripture is for Catholics! (Like Trix, nevermind…)
It is because of Tradition that you even know what Scripture is - you couldn’t know otherwise. Even St. Augustine said that if it weren’t for the Church’s authority that he wouldn’t believe in the Gospels!
“I would not believe in the Gospel, did not the authority of the Church move me.” -St. Augustine

You cannot seperate the two.

 

[E.E.N.S]

kaycee:

Why would “oral tradition” needed when the God Breathed scripture fully equips the man of God?

It says that all scripture is “profitable” not “sufficient.”