Sola Scriptura Tendancies

[Fundamentalist]

Help me to understand why I should not believe that all that is needed is that of the scriptures. Please feel free to challenge my idea’s below, but please be specific in explanation. I am very serious in wanting to follow the truth, whether that be oral or written tradition, but need more (name removed by moderator)ut from you. Please read and respond:

I have been thinking more lately about John’s statements about Jesus being “the Word”. In Heb. 12:2 we find the statement the Jesus is “the author and finisher of our faith”. As being the Word, then the scriptures are the beginning of our faith and the completion of it. This would fit with Paul’s statement in II Tim. 3 that the scriptures are given by the inspiration of God and will thoroughly furnish the man of God to all good works. If we have faith in Christ Jesus and his word then that is enough to guide us to eternal life. Peter also tells us that the knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness (II Peter 1:2-3). And of course Jude spoke of the faith once ("once for al"l NKJ) given to the saints.

I have a red letter edition with Jesus’s words in red, but since he is the Word and the author of it, all of it could be in red as far as I am concerned. Since Paul told Timothy that from a child he had known the holy scriptures, he was speaking mainly of he old testament scriptures for the new had not het been completed. And yet in the next verse he used the expression “all scripture” which would include the rest of what we have. It is evident that Paul’s writing was considered scripture by others for Peter compared Paul’s epistles to “the other scriptures” in II Peter 3:16.

I see two kinds of traditions mentioned in the new testament. Matt. 15 tells of the traditions of men which were harmful to the acceptance of the word of God. Others are like II Thess. 2:15, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which he have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”, and 3:6 , “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us.” These traditions were from inspired men and carried the authority of God. Without inspired men, these are no longer possible to duplicate. I like to follow a path that is well marked. Eternal salvation is too serious a matter for me to want to wander off the enlightened path into the advice of uninspired men.

The idea of the material physical events and also things of old covenant worship to represent the spiritual true things of the new covenant is sprinkled throughout the new testament. An example is in I Cor. 10:1-2, where Paul compared the Hebrews coming from Egypt as being covered over with a cloud and surrounded by the water of the Red Sea to the burial of baptism which he describes in Romans 6:3-5. I believe this to be a fundamental principal in the new covenant that the kingdom of Heaven (the church) is now spiritual. We should look at it in that light and not try to mix the old with the new. To do so would be going backward, or as Paul put it in Galatians 4:9, to the “weak and beggarly elements”.

I think that the lesson here is that sincerity is not enough. We need to follow God’s word instead of the commandments of men.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Help me to understand why I should not believe that all that is needed is that of the scriptures. Please feel free to challenge my idea’s below, but please be specific in explanation. I am very serious in wanting to follow the truth, whether that be oral or written tradition, but need more (name removed by moderator)ut from you. Please read and respond:

I have been thinking more lately about John’s statements about Jesus being “the Word”. In Heb. 12:2 we find the statement the Jesus is “the author and finisher of our faith”. As being the Word, then the scriptures are the beginning of our faith and the completion of it. This would fit with Paul’s statement in II Tim. 3 that the scriptures are given by the inspiration of God and will thoroughly furnish the man of God to all good works. If we have faith in Christ Jesus and his word then that is enough to guide us to eternal life. Peter also tells us that the knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness (II Peter 1:2-3). And of course Jude spoke of the faith once ("once for al"l NKJ) given to the saints.

I have a red letter edition with Jesus’s words in red, but since he is the Word and the author of it, all of it could be in red as far as I am concerned. Since Paul told Timothy that from a child he had known the holy scriptures, he was speaking mainly of he old testament scriptures for the new had not het been completed. And yet in the next verse he used the expression “all scripture” which would include the rest of what we have. It is evident that Paul’s writing was considered scripture by others for Peter compared Paul’s epistles to “the other scriptures” in II Peter 3:16.

I see two kinds of traditions mentioned in the new testament. Matt. 15 tells of the traditions of men which were harmful to the acceptance of the word of God. Others are like II Thess. 2:15, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which he have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”, and 3:6 , “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us.” These traditions were from inspired men and carried the authority of God. Without inspired men, these are no longer possible to duplicate. I like to follow a path that is well marked. Eternal salvation is too serious a matter for me to want to wander off the enlightened path into the advice of uninspired men.

The idea of the material physical events and also things of old covenant worship to represent the spiritual true things of the new covenant is sprinkled throughout the new testament. An example is in I Cor. 10:1-2, where Paul compared the Hebrews coming from Egypt as being covered over with a cloud and surrounded by the water of the Red Sea to the burial of baptism which he describes in Romans 6:3-5. I believe this to be a fundamental principal in the new covenant that the kingdom of Heaven (the church) is now spiritual. We should look at it in that light and not try to mix the old with the new. To do so would be going backward, or as Paul put it in Galatians 4:9, to the “weak and beggarly elements”.

I think that the lesson here is that sincerity is not enough. We need to follow God’s word instead of the commandments of men.

Well said, Fundamentalist! I agree. There is no substitute for the word of God that brings life. Welcome! I hope to hear more from you!

 

[Fidelis]

Help me to understand why I should not believe that all that is needed is that of the scriptures. Please feel free to challenge my idea’s below, but please be specific in explanation. I am very serious in wanting to follow the truth, whether that be oral or written tradition, but need more (name removed by moderator)ut from you. Please read and respond:

I have been thinking more lately about John’s statements about Jesus being “the Word”. In Heb. 12:2 we find the statement the Jesus is “the author and finisher of our faith”. As being the Word, then the scriptures are the beginning of our faith and the completion of it. This would fit with Paul’s statement in II Tim. 3 that the scriptures are given by the inspiration of God and will thoroughly furnish the man of God to all good works. If we have faith in Christ Jesus and his word then that is enough to guide us to eternal life. Peter also tells us that the knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness (II Peter 1:2-3). And of course Jude spoke of the faith once ("once for al"l NKJ) given to the saints…

Let’s start with your premise, which is faulty. You are making the common erroneous presumption that whenever the Bible mentions “God’s word” it is almost always talking about the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible itself never says this, so to start with this premise is to beg the point or engage in circular reasoning.

The fact is, when attention is paid to the context of the passage, we see that most of the time the phrase “Word of God” does not refer to Scripture but to something else, such as Christ, the Law, God’s creative utterances, and apostolic and prophetic preaching. Here are some verses that prove this:

Isaiah 55:10-11 — “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” This demonstrates that “the Word of God” is not Scripture but, rather, God’s creative word.

Luke 3:2-3 — “[T]he word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness; and he went into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance…”

This refers to the inspiration that St. John the Baptist received, as he was sent forth to preach the gospel of repentance and preparation for Christ.

**Luke 4:44-5:1 — **“[Jesus] was preaching in the synagogues of Judea. While the people pressed upon Him to hear the word of God…”

Luke 8:11-15 — “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; …the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away… And as for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bring forth fruit with patience.”

Notice that the emphasis in this last verse is on hearing the word of God; an obvious reference both to Christ’s own preaching as well as to apostolic preaching (cf. 1 Thes 2:13), as well as the continual preaching of the gospel by the Catholic Church to all creatures in all ages (c.f. Mt 28:19-20; Rom 10:14-15).

Continued…

 

[Fidelis]

Continued from last post…

John 1:1, 14 — “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

This passage, of course, refers to the Incarnate Christ.

**Acts 4:31 — **“And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.”

**1 Thessalonians 2:13 — **“[W]hen you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

Here Paul is specifically pointing to oral Tradition, not to Scripture. This was his first epistle to the Thessalonians. Notice that he doesn’t enjoin them to go solely by what is found in Scripture, but he reminds them to adhere to the oral teachings he had handed on to them.

Hebrews 4:12-13 — “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before Him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”

This last passage is frequently quoted out of context by Protestants, as if it meant Scripture. But notice that it speaks of the Word of God as a “Him,” not an “it,” and that it is before “Him [Christ]” that the secrets of our hearts are laid bare and judged. The next time a Protestant quotes this verse out of context, ask him to explain how it is that the Bible can “discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Then ask him if it isn’t nonsensical to think of this as Scripture, and conversely, ask him if it’s not eminently reasonable, even demanded by the context, to see the “Word of God” here to be in reference to Christ.

**Hebrews 11:3 — **“By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.”

This passage in Hebrews only reinforces the conclusion we draw from Hebrews 4:12-13 that the Word being spoken of there is not the Bible. Clearly, no Protestant will posit that “the world was created” by the Bible. If he does, head for the door, quickly!

 

[Fundamentalist]

I think I understand what you are saying, but how can the this contractict the scripture posted in my earlier question. Am I misquoting or using in an incorrect interpretation?

 

[guanophore]

Help me to understand why I should not believe that all that is needed is that of the scriptures. Please feel free to challenge my idea’s below, but please be specific in explanation. I am very serious in wanting to follow the truth, whether that be oral or written tradition, but need more (name removed by moderator)ut from you. Please read and respond:

I have been thinking more lately about John’s statements about Jesus being “the Word”. In Heb. 12:2 we find the statement the Jesus is “the author and finisher of our faith”. As being the Word, then the scriptures are the beginning of our faith and the completion of it. This would fit with Paul’s statement in II Tim. 3 that the scriptures are given by the inspiration of God and will thoroughly furnish the man of God to all good works. If we have faith in Christ Jesus and his word then that is enough to guide us to eternal life. Peter also tells us that the knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness (II Peter 1:2-3). And of course Jude spoke of the faith once ("once for al"l NKJ) given to the saints…
I think that the lesson here is that sincerity is not enough. We need to follow God’s word instead of the commandments of men.

The main problem I see is that you are equating the person of Jesus (The Word) with a collection of translated writings. I think this is a form of idolatry. It is also not appropriate to separate the Holy Writings from the Sacred Traditions that produced them. This always results in misunderstanding and error. Paul would never have done such a thing.

 

[brycelaliberte]

Sola Scriptura had always been a point of worry for me before I decided to become Catholic; while Protestants love to point out certain things in Catholicism and say “That’s not biblical!” I think I’ve come to see it well enough that I can confidently reply “That’s not biblical!”

Before you can accept the Bible as the only Word of God, you must prove how it came to be such;
If the Bible is the only measure of faith, and everything we need to know about our faith should be in there, where does the Bible affirm that it is the only measure of faith?
If the Bible was formed by men, how was the Bible then formed into the infallible source it is now treated as?
And also, being formed by men, what gave them the Authority to do this?

It should be realized that Sola Scriptura truly is a tradition of men, considering there never has been any Word of God that affirms the Bible as the only Word of God. Sola Scriptura holds the Bible to something it was never meant to do, which is why it is so easy to fail in interpretation of it.

The difference should be made between what is meant by traditions of men, and Sacred Tradition of the Church. The two are not the same, though Protestants would like to believe so…

 

[Randy_Carson]

I like to follow a path that is well marked. Eternal salvation is too serious a matter for me to want to wander off the enlightened path into the advice of uninspired men.

In that case, Protestantism is not for you.

The Apostles and their successors, the Bishops of the Catholic Church, are the God-ordained leaders of the ONE body of Christ, and the Church is protected by God Himself from EVER teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

In contrast, the leaders of the Protestant Reformation (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Hus, et. al.) and their descendants have wandered off the “enlightened path” and broken themselves up into thousands of denominations of their own creation.

Since it makes no sense for the Holy Spirit to lead one group to believe that infant baptism is permissable and another group that infant baptism is an error, God cannot be leading both groups which hold contradictory and conflicting theological positions.

The more you look carefully into the complete Word of God, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, you will discover that there is one Church which has taught the truth consistently and without error since the Day of Pentecost: the Catholic Church.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[bookgirl32]

Help me to understand why I should not believe that all that is needed is that of the scriptures.

Because the scriptures 1: don’t tell you that, anywhere, and 2: tell you otherwise, all throughout the Bible. I will admist I answered that after just reading that sentence, I’ll go back and read the rest .

 

[Fidelis]

I think I understand what you are saying, but how can the this contractict the scripture posted in my earlier question. Am I misquoting or using in an incorrect interpretation?

Well, first I wanted to bring to the fore this misaprehension of the phrase “the Word of God” (where it is used in the Bible) always and only being equated with the contents of Sacred Scripture. If we can agree that it doesn’t we can move on to address your specific points:

In Heb. 12:2 we find the statement the Jesus is “the author and finisher of our faith”. As being the Word, then the scriptures are the beginning of our faith and the completion of it.

Right away you have made the mistake of equating Jesus himself to the Bible. So, yes, you are misapplying this verse.

This would fit with Paul’s statement in II Tim. 3 that the scriptures are given by the inspiration of God and will thoroughly furnish the man of God to all good works. If we have faith in Christ Jesus and his word then that is enough to guide us to eternal life.

Another common error – two errors, in fact…
(1) 2 Tim 3 doesn’t say the Scriptures are all we need, it says they are “profitable.” Many things are profitable to us as Christians without being sufficient.
(2) Your second error is again equating the Scriptures with Jesus.

Peter also tells us that the knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness (II Peter 1:2-3). And of course Jude spoke of the faith once ("once for al"l NKJ) given to the saints.

By this I am guessing you are saying that if we equate Jesus with the Scriptures, and Jesus gives us everything we need, ergo, the Scriptures are all we need. I think by now you can see the flaw in this thinking.

I have a red letter edition with Jesus’s words in red, but since he is the Word and the author of it, all of it could be in red as far as I am concerned. Since Paul told Timothy that from a child he had known the holy scriptures, he was speaking mainly of he old testament scriptures for the new had not het been completed. And yet in the next verse he used the expression “all scripture” which would include the rest of what we have. It is evident that Paul’s writing was considered scripture by others for Peter compared Paul’s epistles to “the other scriptures” in II Peter 3:16

.I think we make a big assumption there, since Peter never mention which of Paul’s writings he is referring to. All of his writings? Just Romans? Some lost epistle of Paul we don’t possess anymore? It simply does not say. Same for the other NT books by the other NT writers like Jude and James. In fact, the only way we know what books are in the Bible is because the early Church (the Catholic Church) decided which ones to include and which ones not to include.

I see two kinds of traditions mentioned in the new testament. Matt. 15 tells of the traditions of men which were harmful to the acceptance of the word of God. Others are like II Thess. 2:15, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which he have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”, and 3:6 , “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us.” These traditions were from inspired men and carried the authority of God. Without inspired men, these are no longer possible to duplicate. I like to follow a path that is well marked. Eternal salvation is too serious a matter for me to want to wander off the enlightened path into the advice of uninspired men.

I’m not sure, but I’m thinking you are implying that the Catholic Church equates Sacred Tradition with the Scriptures. It would take too long an explanation to go through here (maybe you can start a new thread), but I assure you this is not the case. Catholics beleive these two come from the same source, but that they are **not **the same thing.

The idea of the material physical events and also things of old covenant worship to represent the spiritual true things of the new covenant is sprinkled throughout the new testament. An example is in I Cor. 10:1-2, where Paul compared the Hebrews coming from Egypt as being covered over with a cloud and surrounded by the water of the Red Sea to the burial of baptism which he describes in Romans 6:3-5. I believe this to be a fundamental principal in the new covenant that the kingdom of Heaven (the church) is now spiritual. We should look at it in that light and not try to mix the old with the new. To do so would be going backward, or as Paul put it in Galatians 4:9, to the “weak and beggarly elements”.

If the Church and the New Testament fulfilments of the OT shadows were merely spiritual, they would be inferior to those OT shadows. That is clearly wrong, since the fulfillment is always superior to it’s shadow, or type. For example, St. Paul calls Adam a type (a foreshadowing) of Jesus. Jesus is inarguably superior to Adam. Same with other OT types and their NT fulfillments.

I think that the lesson here is that sincerity is not enough. We need to follow God’s word instead of the commandments of men.

A perceive that you are a prophet.

 

[bookgirl32]

Fundamentalist:

This would fit with Paul’s statement in II Tim. 3 that the scriptures are given by the inspiration of God and will thoroughly furnish the man of God to all good works.

Paul is not God, so he is not ominicient (I always spell that wrong, so correct me if needed). So he could in no way know what “scripture” would be for those who were reading the finished Bible, OT and NT. So he could not possibly be referring to the Bible as we know it today. I’m not saying that to discredit the Bible, or to say that Paul wouldn’t want us to take the Bible (scripture as we know it today) as divine revelation, but he wasn’t saying that the Bible as we know it will thoroughly furnish the man of God to all good works, because he had no way of knowing what that was to be for sure.

ANd in my Bible, it does not say that scripture will thoroughly furnish the man of God to do all good works. It says that all scripture is inspired and profitable, so that the man of God may be complete. Am I reading my Bible wrong?

 

[GreenLantern]

Help me to understand why I should not believe that all that is needed is that of the scriptures.

If all theology is to only come from the Bible, then why is it that the Bible never puts forward this claim?
If the Bible is the beginning and the end then where is the part in the Bible that says what shall be in the Bible? What is the book or chapter or verse that says to include the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John but not the ones which are attributed to Thomas, Peter, Bartholomew or Judas?

Are we to believe that God gave the holy scripture a magnetic property that would make it so that they the various books would gravitate to each other over the course of history? If this is true then where is the verse that says this?

If God desired that the holy scripture would be all that is needed then why did he not do what he did with Moses and craft them himself and hand them down himself? Why didn’t Jesus himself write the New Testament but instead entrusted it to his disciples, who were all sinners?

 

[maryj]

Because the scriptures 1: don’t tell you that, anywhere, and 2: tell you otherwise, all throughout the Bible. I will admist I answered that after just reading that sentence, I’ll go back and read the rest .

Where in the Bible does it say you can only believe what’s in the Bible? It is a simple argument. Those who adhere to “sola Scriptura” violate their very creed from the start: they invented a precept that is not in the bible AND making it the guidepost for thier religion. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you can only believe what is in the bible.
This is not the only argument.Scholars tend to believe that the first New Testament book written was Pauls’ First letter to the Thesolonians written around 51 A.D. If that is the case, what did the Christians believe for the first 20 years after the Resurrection?
scholars say the first Gospel to be written was the Gospel of Mark, likely written in 70 A.D. Again what did the first Christians believe about the life of Jesus for 30 some years after Jesus, since there was no WRITTEN Gospel.
and finally we kow that the Bible was not in it’s final form until about the fifth century. So what did the Christians believe for the first 400 years of the church if their was no bible to quote?
THE CHURCH!!
If the only guidelines for Christianity were the Bible, than Christianity would have died a painful death. The first few centuries of the Church’s exsistence were very hard, persecutions, martyrdom, and immense growth.
How could Christianity have survived when there was such important doctrinal questions, such as the identity of Jesus,if there not a authoritative institution.
There was such an institution, guiding those first Christians through the difficult first few centuries.
It was called the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[porthos11]

Whenever someone always posits “Sola Scriptura” they always start with a premise that “The Bible is the Word of God” and expect us to swallow it without proof.

Prove first that the Bible is God’s word before even quoting it. Otherwise, why should we even believe the Bible in the first place?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Help me to understand why I should not believe that all that is needed is that of the scriptures. Please feel free to challenge my idea’s below, but please be specific in explanation. I am very serious in wanting to follow the truth, whether that be oral or written tradition, but need more (name removed by moderator)ut from you. Please read and respond:

Here are 21 compelling reason to reject SS.

The burden of proof is on protestants to prove SS is true since, from a historical perspective, neither the earliest Christians believed in it and, from a physical perspective, it was basically impossible.

God bless and happy Easter!

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Prove first that the Bible is God’s word before even quoting it. Otherwise, why should we even believe the Bible in the first place?

Last time I checked, the Word of God was and is expressed perfectly by the PERSON of Jesus Christ.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the** Word was God**.

 

[bookgirl32]

Where in the Bible does it say you can only believe what’s in the Bible? It is a simple argument. Those who adhere to “sola Scriptura” violate their very creed from the start: they invented a precept that is not in the bible AND making it the guidepost for thier religion. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you can only believe what is in the bible.
This is not the only argument.Scholars tend to believe that the first New Testament book written was Pauls’ First letter to the Thesolonians written around 51 A.D. If that is the case, what did the Christians believe for the first 20 years after the Resurrection?
scholars say the first Gospel to be written was the Gospel of Mark, likely written in 70 A.D. Again what did the first Christians believe about the life of Jesus for 30 some years after Jesus, since there was no WRITTEN Gospel.
and finally we kow that the Bible was not in it’s final form until about the fifth century. So what did the Christians believe for the first 400 years of the church if their was no bible to quote?
THE CHURCH!!
If the only guidelines for Christianity were the Bible, than Christianity would have died a painful death. The first few centuries of the Church’s exsistence were very hard, persecutions, martyrdom, and immense growth.
How could Christianity have survived when there was such important doctrinal questions, such as the identity of Jesus,if there not a authoritative institution.
There was such an institution, guiding those first Christians through the difficult first few centuries.
It was called the Roman Catholic Church.

I completely agree! I was just trying to come from the OP way of arguing. The entire idea of sola scriptura actually denies sola scriptura.

 

[porthos11]

Last time I checked, the Word of God was and is expressed perfectly by the PERSON of Jesus Christ.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the** Word was God**.

(Playing the devil’s advocate here.)

And I should believe you, why?

You’re quoting the Bible, but again, no one has presented any proof as to its authority.

 

[Church_Militant]

I found a really excellent short article that gives what I think is one of the very best reasons not to accept Sola Scriptura.

For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency. (LINK

)I can agree completely with what Jimmy Akin says there.

IMO there are many many very good reasons to reject Sola Scriptura, but this is the difference between Catholic and n-C thinking in a very concise nutshell.

 

[guanophore]

It was called the Roman Catholic Church.

Actually, it was not. Y’all Romans are much too stuck on yerselves! It was the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Roman Rite had not developed yet.