Protestants, why?

[PRmerger]

[We do indeed know that Thomas’ Gospel is heretical only because the infallible Apostles passed on the Truth which contradicts the sayings in that book.

So this, Aefensang, is a testament to Sacred Tradition.

God’s Word is revealed NOT through the Scriptures but rather through the living Word proclaimed by the Apostles!

I don’t think history proves it was the hierarchy that made the canon of the Testaments, however. That which has been believed always, everywhere, and by all (the whole Church, being more than just the college of bishops) is the standard.

Again, this is a wonderful expository on the definition of Sacred Tradition.
[/quote]

 

[joe370]

Aefensang;9663845]Sorry if I start to mix-up my responses or lag behind. It’s difficult being the only Anglican in a sea of R.C.s, but that’s what I signed up for: to talk with my brethren! Too late for excuses now!

LOL… Take your time…

1. For apostolic tradition being totally enclosed in Scripture (i.e. the Apostles handed down of everything we need to know for salvation), see my 2 Timothy 3:15 bit above.

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

I read that as a former Protestant, to mean that ALL scripture (not only scripture) is inspired…If you don’t mind me saying, and I of course respect your beliefs, where does 2 Tim. 3 even implicitly suggest that apostolic tradition is totally enclosed in Scripture? I didn’t even think the Anglican church supported that notion?

1. Your question about interpretation assumes that the Bible requires interpretation. In fact, there’s a quote from almost every church Father which plainly says that the Bible interprets itself. “Out of context” they may be, but if you care to read the context, I can provide it with links. For example:

“Wait not, I beg you, for another to teach you; you have the oracles of God. No man teaches you as they; for man indeed often grudges much for vainglory’s sake and envy. Hearken, I beg you, all you that are careful for this life, and procure books that will be medicines for the soul. If you will not have any other, yet at least get the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers.”

No interpreter needed…the bible interprets itself. I thought people interpreted books, as opposed to books?

 

[pablope]

I cannot see the need for another infallible authority super-added to the Bible

 

[Aefensang]

“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Hebrews

The church is called the pillar and foundation of truth and Paul also reminds us of the preceding. I don’t understand why protestants ignore these passages, insisting that the bible is the Christians final authority. The bible being the Christians final authority makes each and every Christian the rightful interpreter, which is not scriptural at all.

Apply your logic about the Bible to the Church Hierarchy. Say, “The Church being the Christian’s final authority makes each and every Christian the rightful interpreter of what the Church says”. You need to interpret which Church is the true one, don’t you? Otherwise, you wouldn’t join. We use private interpretation in all matters of life.

Indeed.

So men are (that is, can be) infallible.

We have established that.

Are you willing, then, to amend your statement, “I believe all infallible might & authority is vested in the Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ” to “I believe that God has permitted certain men, under specific parameters, to enjoy the charism of infallibility.”

Yes?

I believe that God gave a certain group of twelve men an infallible voice to speak truth.

This proclaims that** all Scripture is inspired by God**. To which Catholics give a hearty

But it says nothing at all about Scripture being the ONLY means of God’s revelation.

That’s 2 Timothy 3:16. My reference was to 3:15. Scripture is able to make us wise to salvation. No other source of salvific information is proclaimed in this text or the immediate context.

With regards to Scripture being the only means, please look up how many times the Lord Jesus says “scripture” and “the word” and similar phrases. It is His sole authority, interestingly enough.

Curious, this.

You proffer in the first comment that all we need to know is found in Scripture, yet in the above paragraph you quote, NOT SCRIPTURE, but rather an ECF.

How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction?

I’ve said the ECFs are a good human authority, and authority is indeed to be submitted to if it is legitimate (Romans 13). They are not infallible, but they are helpful guides to point out Scripture that we hadn’t noticed, who don’t have the time.

 

[pablope]

Sorry if I start to mix-up my responses or lag behind. It’s difficult being the only Anglican in a sea of R.C.s, but that’s what I signed up for: to talk with my brethren! Too late for excuses now!

1. For apostolic tradition being totally enclosed in Scripture (i.e. the Apostles handed down of everything we need to know for salvation), see my 2 Timothy 3:15 bit above.

Remember what I posted in #508:

calledtocommunion.com/200…clesial-deism/

From which I will cite:

Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretion

Classic Example of what is spoken of in quote above:

protestant tradition uses this passage,. citing only 2 Timothy 3:15

Your tradition reads this passage only from v15…15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Catholics read this passage from v14…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

Now see how it changes its whole context and meaning…including v14 speaks of oral instruction…the oral tradition one receives…to include with Scripture.

 

[GKC]

As my beloved brother in Christ Ambrose of Milan often said, “Jesus did X according to His human nature, but did Y according to His divine nature”. By His divine perfection, He is God everlasting, but by His human nature, He receives things that are divine (see the end of Luke 2; He grew in wisdom and understanding). Anyway, this is in the divine Scripture: all authority is given Jesus Christ in heaven and on earth, and this is what He says directly for the whole world to hear, in Matthew.

Please keep reading my response to you above.

Almighty GOD.

Don’t you think it’s inconsistent to quote Irenaeus, Clement, and Ignatius “out of context” and then say your opponent is about to do exactly the same thing, to his own discredit?

Come, let us reason together. - Isaiah 1:18

Don’t worry, GKC. It’s a Christian’s job to confront what he sees as error, and to defend on his home ground.

I’'m not worried.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Sorry if I start to mix-up my responses or lag behind. It’s difficult being the only Anglican in a sea of R.C.s, but that’s what I signed up for: to talk with my brethren! Too late for excuses now!

1. For apostolic tradition being totally enclosed in Scripture (i.e. the Apostles handed down of everything we need to know for salvation), see my 2 Timothy 3:15 bit above.
2. Your question about interpretation assumes that the Bible requires interpretation. In fact, there’s a quote from almost every church Father which plainly says that the Bible interprets itself. “Out of context” they may be, but if you care to read the context, I can provide it with links. For example:

CHRYSOSTOM: Homily 9 on Colossians (3:16-17)

There are other Anglicans, of various stripes, about.

GKC

 

[Aefensang]

So this, Aefensang, is a testament to Sacred Tradition.

God’s Word is revealed NOT through the Scriptures but rather through the living Word proclaimed by the Apostles!

Again, this is a wonderful expository on the definition of Sacred Tradition.

Is it Sacred Tradition for bishops to use history & testimony from other churches in order to come to a reasonable conclusion about the authenticity of a text?

Where did God say it? How did God accomplish this? Is God limited to the written word?

The Lord Jesus certainly seems to have thought so. The Scripture was the only thing on His lips, the fulfillment of which was His driving passion.

I provided whole paragraphs…to try to give the whole context…

May I ask why you assumed I wouldn’t do the same thing for you? Perhaps you believe things about Protestants which aren’t necessarily true? It’s ok if you do… just search your heart before getting excited. I don’t mind if this takes a good long time, so long as we do things rightly and charitably.

[quote="pablope, post:519, topic:292882"]


That is right....do you realize the authority of a bishop over the laity also?

Yet...do you follow the example of Paul in submitting to authority? Like what says here:

[/quote]



Yes, and yes. Sorry, I'm totally off-put by the storm of replies. Let's allow everything to settle and then we can take stock of the salient points.



> Was John of Damascus a Pope? Why do you take and believe as authoritative the opinion of John of Damascus?





I stated that he is an historical source off the bat, not treated as authoritative: simply a witness.



> Why not the proclamation of Pope Damasus on his proclamation of the Canon after the Council of Rome?





Of course that's something to consider, but many Fathers before and after that Council give us the "Protestant" Canon. Had they just not heard of this definition? How didn't they know? 



> Again...where is the writing of the Apostles, any apostle, where they say what should be in the Canon of the Bible?





I believe that by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, John knew what Scripture was when he wrote that none should add or remove from this book. Though he was referring to Revelation, Catholics and everyone else take it to refer to Scripture. What can I say? :p



> Actually, you know it know because Catholic bishops preserved the oral traditions and passed them on...to the regional councils...which were approved by various popes.....and you are merely affirming the Traditions of the CC. 





It would be a very nice system, and I would have remained Roman, if I thought all that was true. Many of the Fathers are of a different opinion, however. Once this chaos of replies cools down, I will give you some of the quotes which convinced me to become a Protestant. That way I can succinctly answer the question "Protestants, why?"



> Let me ask you....put yourself in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd century...you are a new Christian....under Roman persecution, on the run...worshiping in the Catacombs.....no printing press, do not know how to read or write....so how would you know what is Scripture and what is not?





I hope that the bishops are giving me accurate information, and rely on their holiness of living and godliness more than anything. 



> Which Church was it that existed at the time of Paul and still exists today?





The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, of which Rome, Canterbury, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Moscow are parts.



[quote="pablope, post:529, topic:292882"]
Remember what I posted in #508:

[calledtocommunion.com/200...clesial-deism/](http://www.calledtocommunion.com/200...clesial-deism/)

From which I will cite:




> Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology................This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretion





I'm afraid that no matter what someone like myself says to such a passage, we will be considered pickers-and-choosers. There's a certain disdain running underneath the words...

Catholics read this passage from v14...............14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

[/quote]



Why do you interpret 15 in light of 14, instead of 14 in light of 15? If context is important, it can go backward and forward. I would put it like this: "Continue in what you have learned and become convinced of via the holy Scriptures, which have been taught to you (*by your mother & grandmother*, Louis & Eunice, as the opening of the letters to Timothy says), etc.





[quote="joe370, post:526, topic:292882"]
I read that as a former Protestant, to mean that ALL scripture (not only scripture) is inspired...If you don't mind me saying, and I of course respect your beliefs, where does 2 Tim. 3 even implicitly suggest that apostolic tradition is totally enclosed in Scripture? I didn't even think the Anglican church supported that notion? 

[/quote]



Is your past experience getting in the way? :p Fellow Protestants often quote 3:16-17, as you've probably seen I was quoting verse 15. I don't know why protestants often leave it out, since it's the strongest point behind our entire case. If Scripture is enough to teach us salvation, there is no higher goal. If you had a manual that said "This manual has all the essentials of carpentry", you'd start off measuring and sawing it. An experienced woodcutter might assist you, but he'd have read the manual himself. If he had learned it from a master woodcutter before him, that person would have read the manual, back down the line. Of course it isn't a perfect allegory, since the works of men are perfected by trial and error.



> No interpreter needed...the bible interprets itself. I thought people interpreted books, as opposed to books? :confused:





Tomorrow, I'll give a good account of this. If there are 3-4 pages passed already by that time, I'll just make a short little post and try to answer.

I wish all of you a quiet and peaceful night.

LIGHTEN our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord; and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers of this night; for the love of thy only Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

[joe370]

Aefensang

Is your past experience getting in the way?

I think you got me on that one. My bad.

15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

I don’t know why protestants often leave it out, since it’s the strongest point behind our entire case. If Scripture is enough to teach us salvation, there is no higher goal.

Do we both agree that holy scripture for Timothy, in his infancy, did not include the NT? That aside, I see your point. Holy scripture is all the individual needs to make him/her wise for salvation, meaning that each and every believer needs only to defer to scripture as opposed to leaders; wonder what Paul would have to say about that, in light oh Hebrews 13:17 and other passages? :shrug:Man, that 16th century practice has sadly fractured Jesus’ Mystical Body, the Church.

By the way are you cool with what John Chrysostom said about Peter. For example, his homilies strongly emphasized his belief in the Peter’s primacy. He called Peter “the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ…”

So many more quotes from him, align with that view…

 

[pablope]

Is it Sacred Tradition for bishops to use history & testimony from other churches in order to come to a reasonable conclusion about the authenticity of a text?

 

[Aefensang]

If anyone would like my shortest answer to “Protestants, why?”, see the quotes in this post.

Do we both agree that holy scripture for Timothy, in his infancy, did not include the NT?

That’s one of the conundrums for anyone reading Scripture. Deuteronomy says somewhere that none shall add to ‘these words’. Proverbs, added to the Bible later than Deuteronomy, says the same thing. The New Testament, added to the Bible later than Proverbs, says the same thing about its own passages.

You know, I was just baptised last year. I am no genius or saint, but I came here to see how Catholics are doing, and to be in unity with you. Maybe we can both learn; hopefully, God has it in store for all parties concerned here.

I was going to go to bed, but this is exciting! I’m also impressed by your personal good will and thank God for inspiring me to post here on a day when you weren’t grumpy or anything.

wonder what Paul would have to say about that, in light oh Hebrews 13:17 and other passages? :shrug:Man, that 16th century practice has sadly fractured Jesus’ Mystical Body, the Church.

Hebrews 13:17 may indeed be about Bishops, but look at what Paul wrote in Romans 13: he enumerates duties to “higher powers”, we being subject to even pagan kings as a matter of our very salvation. All power is ordained by God providentially. We are not to obey the government if they ask us to do something wrong, however! Same principles for bishops, perhaps?

The 11th century schism didn’t help; neither did the Arian schism in the 4th; nor the Non-Chalcedonian in the 5th; nor the Western Schism in the 14th. In light of history, and for the good will of charity, I do wish people would stop treating Protestantism as if it’s the sole preserve of schism and disunity.

By the way are you cool with what John Chrysostom said about Peter. For example, his homilies strongly emphasized his belief in the Peter’s primacy. He called Peter “the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ…”

So many more quotes from him, align with that view…

And so many more quotes from him do not align with that view.

Chrysostom Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles 15:13-15 (Council of Jerusalem):

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up. Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.

Chrysostom Homily 54 on Matthew 17 (On the Transfiguration)

1. “And after six days He taketh with Him Peter and James and John."

Now another [Luke] says, “after eight,” not contradicting this writer, but most fully agreeing with him. For the one expressed both the very day on which He spake, and that on which He led them up; but the other, the days between them only.

A bible ‘contradiction’ resolved, in case you were wondering about that. ]

But mark thou, I pray thee, the severe goodness of Matthew, not concealing those who were preferred to himself. This John also often doth, recording the peculiar praises of Peter with great sincerity. For the choir of these holy men was everywhere pure from envy and vainglory.

Having taken therefore the leaders, “He bringeth them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them …]"

Wherefore doth He take with Him these only? Because these were superior to the rest. And Peter indeed showed his superiority by exceedingly loving Him; but John by being exceedingly loved of Him [etc.]

Chrysostom Homily 52 on Matthew 16 (Peter & the Keys)

1. What then saith Christ? “Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.” “Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;” all but saying, “As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.” Else it were superfluous to say, “Thou art Son of Jonas;” but since he had said, “Son of God,” to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

It’s stuff like that, in the Fathers, which led me to begin to doubt the veracity of Rome’s claims for herself. It hurts me deeply, and I wanted to avoid recklessly pasting such words in case it hurts the faith of others. Precious souls are always loved by God…

TO PABLOPE: This man answers your objections better than I could:

turretinfan.blogspot.ca/2010/02/unloading-35-loaded-questions-for-bible_09.html

On the CANON: turretinfan.blogspot.ca/2010/02/unloading-35-loaded-questions-for-bible_02.html

On people not having access, or being illiterate: turretinfan.blogspot.ca/2010/02/unloading-35-loaded-questions-for-bible_03.html

 

[joe370]

Aefensang

;

Aefensang, what’s the Anglican position regarding authority in terms of interpreting scripture, defining doctrines and enforcing them with charity of course? Do they have a magisterium (teaching office) that the flock must defer to or are they strictly sola scriptura advocates, meaning the authority lies in each Christian belonging to the Anglican church? I must plead ignorance when it comes to the Anglican church.

 

[GKC]

;

Aefensang, what’s the Anglican position regarding authority in terms of interpreting scripture, defining doctrines and enforcing them with charity of course? Do they have a magisterium (teaching office) that the flock must defer to or are they strictly sola scriptura advocates, meaning the authority lies in each Christian belonging to the Anglican church? I must plead ignorance when it comes to the Anglican church.

Keep in mind that Anglicans are a motley crew.

GKC

 

[joe370]

quote=Aefensang;

Hebrews 13:17 may indeed be about Bishops, but look at what Paul wrote in Romans 13: he enumerates duties to “higher powers”, we being subject to even pagan kings as a matter of our very salvation. All power is ordained by God providentially. We are not to obey the government if they ask us to do something wrong, however! Same principles for bishops, perhaps?

Here we see Paul addressing the church:

Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.

Here we see Paul addressing mattersregarding the civil authorities and how to react…:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

One has nothing to do with the other…

 

[Aefensang]

;

Aefensang, what’s the Anglican position regarding authority in terms of interpreting scripture, defining doctrines and enforcing them with charity of course? Do they have a magisterium (teaching office) that the flock must defer to or are they strictly sola scriptura advocates, meaning the authority lies in each Christian belonging to the Anglican church? I must plead ignorance when it comes to the Anglican church.

The Anglican Church, first and foremost, is not the proper name. The* Anglican Communion* is a group of around 40 national churches. It is united by virtue of the fact that each of its members is in unity & communion with the Archbishopric of Canterbury.

For evangelical & reformed Anglicans, our Magisterium is the Apostles, teaching through the divine Scriptures - if you want to put it that way. Each national church has a set of Canons, like the Roman Code of Canon Law, but these are disciplinary and are not considered ‘tradition’ or anything.

Keep in mind that Anglicans are a motley crew.

GKC

Listen to GKC, joe. GKC is wise!

Since the mid-19th century, many Anglicans have taken to believing that Tradition and the Hierarchy have a certain authority to which the average faithful should bow. These people tend to be Anglo-Catholics, or Tractarians, or members of the Oxford movement (all the same thing). They argue that the Church of England as it was reformed in the 1530s-1560s got rid of too much, and has to go back to Medieval standards, at the least.

There are many different opinions from different Anglicans through the years as to whether we are Protestant or Catholic. Anglicans are as split today as Catholic communities are between SSPX, FSSP, Sedevacantists, and other bizarre groups. Some Anglicans have come up with the milquetoast “Middle Way” to describe us, but it doesn’t satisfy me personally.

 

[pablope]

If anyone would like my shortest answer to “Protestants, why?”, see the quotes in this post.

As I suggested previously…Start a thread on it…

The 11th century schism didn’t help; neither did the Arian schism in the 4th;

 

[pablope]

If anyone would like my shortest answer to “Protestants, why?”, see the quotes in this post.

TO PABLOPE: This man answers your objections better than I could:

Objections…I had questions for you…

How do the links below help your case? Have you read them? They are rationalizing.

turretinfan.blogspot.ca/2010/02/unloading-35-loaded-questions-for-bible_09.html

On the CANON: turretinfan.blogspot.ca/2010/02/unloading-35-loaded-questions-for-bible_02.html

1. Athanasius got the whole New Testament canon correct before either Hippo or Carthage. We have evidence for Athanasius, but we don’t think he was alone in this regard.

 

[PRmerger]

God’s Word is revealed NOT through the Scriptures but rather through the living Word proclaimed by the Apostles!

EDIT: God’s Word is revealed NOT through the Scriptures, but rather through the living Word proclaimed by the Apostles (which, of course, includes the Scriptures.)

 

[PRmerger]

I believe that God gave a certain group of twelve men an infallible voice to speak truth.

Excellent.

So we’ve established that men can have an infallible voice to speak truth.

Now, what Scripture verse tells you that this infallible voice ceased at the death of the last apostle?

Book, chapter and verse, please.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s 2 Timothy 3:16. My reference was to 3:15. Scripture is able to make us wise to salvation. No other source of salvific information is proclaimed in this text or the immediate context.

Fair enough.

Firstly, it does not say Scripture “alone” is able to make us wise to salvation. Nor will you find the word “only” there.

Secondly, if you interpret that verse to mean “Scripture Alone” makes us complete, then you ought to apply that same paradigm to James 1:4, which declares that perseverance makes us complete.

Are you of the Perseverance Alone tradition?

With regards to Scripture being the only means, please look up how many times the Lord Jesus says “scripture” and “the word” and similar phrases. It is His sole authority, interestingly enough.

Again, he never says Scripture Alone.

As far as “the word”, Catholics believe that Sacred Tradition* is *“the word”, so that’s a verse that is quite satisfactory to the Catholic paradigm of Scripture and Tradition.

Finally, if you really want to use this argument, then, since the NT was not yet in existence when Jesus spoke these words regarding “Scripture being the only means” (which, of course, Jesus NEVER said “only”), then you’re going to have to proclaim that it’s the Old Testament Scriptures Alone that reveal God’s plan.

Are you of the OT Alone tradition, too?