Sola Scriptura

The John Ankerberg Show ^ | Feb.11,2015 | James McCarthy;

[RnMomof7]

Sola Scriptura

Today, even as in the time of the Reformation, thousands of Catholics worldwide are leaving Roman Catholicism for biblical Christianity. And once again, the rallying cry of the sixteenth century, Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, is being heard.

Roman Catholic defenders have responded to this challenge by going on the offen­sive. A typical argument sounds something like this:

The Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith, because the first Christians didn’t have the New Testament. Initially, Tradition, the oral teachings of the apostles, was the Church’s rule of faith. The New Testament came later when a portion of Tradition was put to writing. It was the Roman Catholic Church that produced the New Testament, and it was the Church that infallibly told us what books belong in the Bible. It is the Church, therefore, that is the authoritative teacher of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not even taught in the Bible. The rule of faith of the Roman Catholic Church, therefore, is rightly Scripture and Tradition together.

Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:

Christians have never been without the Scriptures as their rule of faith.

The unforgettable experience of two early disciples shows the fallacy of thinking that the first Christians were ever without Scripture as their rule of faith. Three days after the crucifixion, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking home. A fellow traveler, whom they took for a stranger, joined them along the way. The conversation quickly turned to the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. With deep sorrow, the disciples told the story of how the chief priests and rulers of the nation had sentenced Jesus to death and had Him crucified by the civil authorities.

To the disciples’ shock, the stranger rebuked them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25, NIV). Then begin­ning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets, the stranger explained to them the truths concerning Jesus in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Eventually the two disciples realized that their fellow traveler was no stranger at all but the Lord Jesus Himself! Later they recalled, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32).

The experience of those two early disciples was not unique. With the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost, and with the aid of the apostles’ teaching, Jewish Christians rediscov­ered their own Scriptures. Their common conviction was that the Old Testament, properly understood, was a revelation of Christ. There they found a prophetic record of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection.

The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God.

Scripture is not simply written Tradition.

Roman Catholic descriptions of the origin of the New Testament stress that the oral teachings of the apostles, Tradition, preceded the written record of those teachings, Scrip­ture. Often the New Testament is presented as little more than a written record of Tradition, the writer’s recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ’s teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture—or, more precisely, drops Scripture to the level of Tradition.

But the New Testament Scriptures are much more than a written record of the oral teaching of the apostles; they are an inspired record. A biblical understanding of inspiration makes clear the significance of this distinction. Peter writes,

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV)

Here we see that Scripture is not “the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, NIV). The word translated “interpretation” means to solve or to explain. Peter is saying that no writer of the New Testament simply recorded his own explanation of what he had heard Jesus teach and had seen Him do. Scripture does not have “its origin in the will of man” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). The writers of the Bible did not decide that they would write a prophetic record or what would be included in Scripture. Rather, they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).

The word translated here “carried along” is found in the New Testament in Mark 2:3. There it is used with reference to the paralytic whose friends carried him to Jesus for heal­ing. Just as the paralytic did not walk by his own power, a true prophet does not write by his own impulse. He is “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Men wrote the New Testament; “men spoke” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Their writings reflect their individual personalities and experiences. But these “men spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21). Men wrote but God was the author.

For these reasons, Scripture is revelation perfectly communicated in God-given words:

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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV)

The phrase “inspired by God” is the translation of a compound term made up of the words God and to breathe. The verse can be translated: “All Scripture is God-breathed. . . “(2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). Scripture is therefore rightly called the Word of God.

In reducing Scripture to simply written Tradition, Catholic proponents are able to boost the importance of Tradition. But in doing so, they distort the meaning of inspiration and minimize the primary difference between Scripture and Tradition.

The Bible contains all essential revelation.

It is true that the New Testament does not contain a record of everything that Jesus did. John makes this clear in the conclusion of his gospel:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written. John 21:25

John’s point in concluding his gospel with this comment was to acknowledge that the life of the Lord Jesus was far too wonderful to be fully contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for Tradition. Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. Indeed, earlier in his gospel, John implies the opposite:

Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31

We can infer from this statement that John included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Significantly, he makes no reference to seven sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, or an institu­tion such as the Roman Catholic Church—all necessary for salvation according to Roman Catholicism.

The Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: “that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV). They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith. Unlike Tradition, the Scriptures are accessible and open to all. Translations of the entire Bible have been made into the primary languages of the world, 276 in total. It is the most widely distributed and read book in all of history.

To define Roman Catholic Tradition as a font of extra-biblical revelation is to add to God’s Word. Scripture warns us “not to exceed what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). “Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). The last book of the New Testament ends with this solemn warning:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

At question is the authority of Tradition, not Scripture.

There are hundreds of verses in the Bible establishing the truth that the Word of God is the church’s sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of God’s Word. The Lord Jesus taught:

Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4

Though Scriptures can be multiplied on this theme, it is not necessary to do so. The Roman Catholic Church agrees that the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith and that all theology must rest upon it. There is no question as to the suffi­ciency or authority of the Word of God.

The controversy revolves around the identity of God’s Word. Namely, is the Word of God Scripture and Tradition? Or, is the Word of God Scripture alone?

In the ongoing debate, Roman Catholic proponents enjoy taking the offensive by challenging non-Catholics to prove that God intended that the Scriptures alone were to serve as the church’s rule of faith. “Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?” they demand.

Though this tactic is effective in putting their opponents on the defensive, it is in fact misleading. Both sides agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority. The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture.

The point of controversy is Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradi­tion is also the Word of God.

The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church’s rule of faith? This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate. And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradi­tion and the Magesterium, the burden of proof lies with Rome.

Adapted from The Gospel According to Rome (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1995).

Notes

1. Compare: Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” no. 19.
2. Patrick Johnstone, Operation World (Grand Rapids, MIchigan: Zondervan, 1993), p. 22.
3. Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” no. 21 and no. 24.

[fish hawk]

” I am a Catholic who puts the Bible first”.... LOL, Still Trapped behind enemy lines. If you , like you say, put the Bible first, why are you still a Roman Catholic? you would have to go against your religious rulers. Would it not make more sense to get into something more comfortable?

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

I have spent most of my life in the Church. Actually I love my Church, but I do not hesitate to criticize it when I think it is wrong. I probably agree with 90-95% of what the Church teaches. I suppose I could join another church, but then again I would certainly find areas of disagreement in another church as well. I think it’s best for me to stay put. I’m a volunteer at my Church and have a lot of deep ties to it. So I’ll stick it out.

I’m also a lifelong Republican. My party is always perfect and I don’t always march in lock step with the leadership. But I haven’t found a Party more closely aligned with my views so I’ll stick it out with GOP as well.

[fish hawk]

LOL, Jesus being God, I have no doubt he could even speak Klingon.

[DarkWaters]

What are you doing about it? Nothing of course. See how that game works? If your going to answer, answer with substance with in the realm of the discussion that was going back and forth between the two of us, or is dealing with facts and substance to hard for you? More pride, which is clear by your lack of substance submitted in the form of a question rather than any true reflection.

[DarkWaters]

“Her” being the teachings of our Lord and not the clergy who are the stewards of His Church. That is what you need for your salvation, but you assume you can go it alone, ie you are your own steward, that is pride all the way.

“Not addressing the questions, actually just ignoring and/or avoiding.”

Well at least there is some honesty for once. The political left also avoid the truth the same way, in case you have forgotten. Its much more safer that way.

[DarkWaters]

As Pope Benedict pointed out well before he was pope, the Catholic Church is smaller than we think, meaning that many who call themselves Catholic, really are not. Meaning they don’t follow the teachings. I find that those say it is 1.2 billion strong are the ones who reject some, or large chunk of the Churches teachings. So points to you for seeing something that is a truly prideful statement and against our Lords command that we be humble as the Father in Heaven is. To bad, those who are picking and choosing what to believe are just like Protestants.

Those of us who do follow, don’t brag about it since this is salvation we are talking about here, our Lord commands us to be humble. You really like to lump everyone into one camp when its convenient to you rather than seeing the whole, quite telling looking into the state of your mind. Second, the number of souls that go to Heaven mean everything to our Lord, unfortunately as stated above, the Church is smaller than we think, much smaller. But hey, numbers don’t mean anything? Right? May I put words into your mouth, like ‘Those many throughout the world who have not come to our Lord, are just numbers which doesn’t mean anything?’ I suspect you would not agree with a statement like this, and yet you carelessly make statements without fully examining the issues of the very statement you make and makes for a truly stupid statement not to mention you seem to like placing words into my mouth with false assumptions and narratives.

Hubris = Excessive pride

So What is the Difference Here?!?!?!?!?! Do you even bother to read what you are writing? Our Lord commands us to be humble. Period. Hubris, pride is the same to our Lord. Care to explain yourself here? for you are confirming your pride.

If your going to have one liners like “physician, heal thyself” in wake of the colossal error you made above, please explain what this reference means to you in this post, as you have completely jumped off the rails here.

[WVKayaker]

Who ELSE could have given her such a gift (as that of sinlessness), but God? She certainly didn't give it to HERSELF...

Another RC troll!

Circular reasoning and false assumptions do not make good arguments for positions. Many have spent a lot of wasted bandwidth to say nothing of consequence, but instead make attempts to be considered authoritarian by appealing to Catholic dogma.

However, FRiend, the Roman Catholic religion is nothing but another manmade cult, making up rules and doctrines out of nothing. It may have fooled millions and billions, but that is mainly due to the stranglehold threat of expulsion and alleged separation from God (since excommunication is considered as that).

Constant appeals to logic reinforce the ignorance posted, and the fallback position of adherence to Roman Catholic dogma shows how much an early indoctrination can overshadow even God's Holy Spirit and Guide! (for similar results, see: Islam!)

You FAILed to advance any cogent argument. Do you teach 2+2=5?

But, have a good life and accept Christ as your ONLY Savior before it's too late! The RCC is only a false religion, not a relationship with God!

[metmom]

That is very arrogant assumption which I have to assume was your intent since you are attempting to place yourself above in this matter despite the problem is more common in your ranks than you want to admit just based on how you phrased your words.

You don't HAVE to assume that was her intent at all. Assuming that is a choice you made. Nobody forced you to do it.

You lack the humbleness of our Lord and what he commands of us just like those priests and bishops you pointed out in that article.

That's quite a bit of judgment of character.

Your judging her is no different than what you are condemning her for.

[metmom]

As Pope Benedict pointed out well before he was pope, the Catholic Church is smaller than we think, meaning that many who call themselves Catholic, really are not. Meaning they don’t follow the teachings. I find that those say it is 1.2 billion strong are the ones who reject some, or large chunk of the Churches teachings.

Well, then, you need to take that up with some of your compatriots who constantly brag on hose 1.2 billion strong when they want to prove something about the Catholic church and they disown them when it's pointed out how liberal they are.

[Springfield Reformer]

1) In any given human encounter, it is possible to misread someone’s motives for almost anything that is said, unless they spell it out personally, or unless you are God.

2) Therefore, to nurture peace, the rules of the RF forbid attempts to read the minds/hearts of others. You are out of line.

Peace,

SR

[fish hawk]

arguing with catholics is a waste of time. I recently mentioned to a Catholic that their church and the red cross actually helped some Nazi SS officers with papers and such escape Europe into South America. He said I was dead wrong. I sent him documentation , writings, videos , web sites etc. and his answer was, on one, well that came from the French , can’t believe them , another , Oh but that wasn’t from Lowenthal ( I think that is his name , the famous Nazi hunter. and on and on. He could not think for himself and come to a conclusion that he may be wrong. Instead, he was the Catholic sheep I expected him to be, His church could do no wrong. How about you. look up what I said and see if your church did indeed help the Nazi murderers.

[Elsie]

What are you doing about it? Nothing of course. See how that game works?

The mindreading game?

[Elsie]

“Her” being the teachings of our Lord and not the clergy who are the stewards of His Church. That is what you need for your salvation,

Calm down and just answer the question.

Which was...

What does Rome provide for my salvation that the Bible does not?

What do I need from her to ASSURE my salvation?

[Elsie]

Do you even bother to read what you are writing?

HMMMmmm...

[paladinan]

Sorry for the delay, all... access to FR has been near-zero for about 4 days! I’ll try to get to some of the backlogged messages, as time allows...

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
I'm not comparing sacred, Divinely-inspired Scripture (i.e. the 73-book, full Bible) with man made dogmas and doctrines (e.g. sola Scriptura, "once-saved-always-saved", sola fide, etc.).

[boatbums]
Nice try! Those "extra" seven books Catholics added to their canon actually WERE man-made, humanly devised writings, not God-breathed.

All right... you've just given me your personal opinion. Now, in order for me (or anyone else who isn't you) to take it as compelling, you'll need to demontrate/prove your claim. And in your case, you'll need to do it from the 66-book Protestant Bible alone.

I can show you every one of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith that I believe from Scripture, can you?

Since I reject the unbiblical, self-contradictory, man-made idea of "Scripture alone", the idea of whether or not I can demonstrate all of my beliefs "from Scripture" (and I assume, again, that you mean the 66-book fragment of the Bible which you use) is irrelevant. If you'd like me to follow "sola Scriptura", you'll have to prove it true... and from Scripture alone. You haven't come close to doing that, yet.

I noticed you avoided the second part of my response. I'll repeat it:

I was in the midst of typing some rather long and involved replies to others; I didn't mean to neglect yours... but yours was a bit further down the priority list, since your comment started with a cluster of vague, unproven claims (which I highlighted, in my whimsical reply).

We know that the Holy Spirit would not contradict Himself and we know that Scripture is God-breathed.

I agree completely.

ERGO, whatever we might think is a contradiction, it can't be and it's up to us to study the Scriptures to determine what is being communicated.

Again, no argument from me... and I said as much, in the post to which you were replying (#619). Did you miss that?

On the other hand, what some church bigwigs get together and decide is their "truth", may or may not BE the truth and they could very well come back later and walk back what they previously stated was "infallible" truth.

Now, with all due respect, this is obviously just a jumbled mix of your own opinions. First, the Church Magisterium doesn't "decide" what is "their truth"; they discern what God has handed down to us, and they hold that to be a sacred trust. (See the Catechism, #86, on that point). Second, I don't think you've gotten quite clear in your mind how to distinguish what the Church actually teaches as dogma (i.e. "de fide"--Latin: "of the Faith"--articles of Faith, obligatory for belief, and cannot ever change in substance, be revoked, or contradict any other article of the Faith) from what is not.

The Roman Catholic church - though they are hardly alone in this - has been caught doing this more than a few times. They might come along and try to explain it in "lawyer" speak so as to not admit they just contradicted themselves, but it is obvious to those objective enough to see it.

I see. Can you give some examples? I'd also gently urge you to be familiar with the distinction between "de fide" teaching and non-"de fide" teaching, when doing so. (E.g. Citing a change in the duration of the Eucharistic fast, for example, won't help your case, since it's a discipline, and not doctrine at all.)

The doctrines of faith alone, Scripture alone and perseverance of the saints and others are all Biblically-based and can be demonstrated by Scripture.

First, you'll have to clarify what you mean by those terms, especially since there are many different "flavors" of some of these ideas, on this thread alone. (For example: "faith alone" in WHAT is sufficient for WHAT, exactly? And what are the parameters for your view of "Scripture ALONE"? By "perseverence of the saints", do you mean something akin to "once saved, always saved"? And what "others" do you mean?)

Second, you'll have to show how those ideas have been "demonstrated" beyond all reasonable doubt (i.e. proven), and from "Scripture alone". Mere mention of "faith" or the "importance of Scripture" won't do, at all... since you're not trying to prove that; you're trying (I gather) to prove that Luther's ideas of "sola Scriptura" and "sola fide" (but again, you'd have to give your specifics, since I'm not sure your version is identical to Luther's) are true... which is quite a different thing.

Your religion claims it doesn't need Scripture to devise their doctrines as it considers itself an authority over God's sacred word rather than being in submission to it.

In case you didn't click the link, above, let me quote it to you:

"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith." (CCC 86)

You're free to call them liars (though that'd be obviously your mere opinion), and you're free to say that you reject the Church based on your own views; but you are NOT free to assert that the Catholic Church "claims to consider itself an authority over God's Sacred Word rather than being in submission to it"... since that is provably false.

That was and will continue to be the dividing line.

"There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.
-Ven. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

I think you meant Simon Wisenthal. The Catholic record on the Holocaust is a mixed bag. Pope Pius XII has been vilified for his role, although his actions saved hundreds of thousands of Jews during WWII. Many priests were brutally murdered by the Nazis. Many Nazis themselves (including AH came from Catholic backgrounds). However, nearly all hated Christianity and all things even remotely Jewish, including Jesus. And yes, I agree with you, it is difficult to reason with SOME Catholic fanatics who place Church and religious institutions over the teachings of the Gospels and the Bible.

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
But in order to be logically consistent (and to give a not-previously-disposed person a reason to accept it), you'd at least have to show how Scripture unambiguously teaches that idea...

[SR]
I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, but I do strive for focus, and this I think is the critical piece.

:) No worries, FRiend. In any friendly discussion, I'm not at all picky about people replying to every last jot and tittle of my posts. The only time I get a bit annoyed with that is when I'm conversing with commenters who get testy and irritable and demanding of answers which I've already given (present company excepted), or who ignore salient points merely in order to beat their favorite rhetorical "drum". In short: no harm, no foul.

It is axiomatic that the word of God is superior to all other authorities.

I think I know what you mean (I assume you mean any authorities other than God, Himself?)... but that still leaves some problems:

1) By "Word of God", are you restricting the term to the WRITTEN Word of God (i.e. the Scriptures)? Scripture itself applies the term "Word of God" (Gk: "Logos") to Jesus Christ, Himself; and every last bit of self-revelation by God through Jesus Christ can be called the "Word of God" (whether written, or oral--cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15). And just to anticipate an objection (which has already been raised by others on this thread): if anyone wishes to assert that the praiseworthy and mandatory (cf. 2 Thes 3:6) "traditions" referenced by St. Paul were somehow identical to, or contained entirely within, Sacred Scripture, they *would* need to PROVE that fact decisively (from Scripture alone, as is their paradigm), and not simply claim it.

2) The CONTENTS of even the WRITTEN Word of God are in dispute between us (since I assume you don't use the 73-book Bible which is used by Catholics, most Eastern Orthodox, and assorted others); and logic demands that this issue CANNOT be settled by "Scripture alone", since the "entire Bible" could not be consulted before the "entire Bible" was compiled.

3) You'd have to show where Scripture CLAIMS to be "superior to all other authorities"; it isn't enough simply to assert it, or to claim that it's self-evident.

It would function as the word of God even if it never offered a formal statement of it's own sufficiency.

But that begs at least three immediate questions: what is the function of the Word of God (yes, I know 2 Tim 3:16-17, but is that comprehensive and sufficiently clear? Where in Scripture does it tell us?), and for what is it "sufficient", and why should anyone take seriously any claim of superiority/sufficiency it makes for ITSELF? (Yes, you're speaking to someone who already knows that the Bible is the inerrant, authoritative, Written Word of God... but that's a convenience, not a proof; I accept the authority of the Scriptures for rather different reasons than I think you do, since I am one in heart with St. Augustine, who said, "I would not accept the Gospels themselves, had not the Catholic Church recommended them to me.")

The supremacy of it's authority is inherent in it's simply being the word of God.

See above; there are many logical questions which need to be addressed, on this point.

God spoke from heaven audibly and said "This is My beloved Son, hear Him." The apostles, at that moment, are not having epistemological problems.

They're also not reading the Bible, I'd gently point out. :)

They know this is God speaking. They believe it because they have the gift of faith, not because the divine voice throws a self-certifying proof text at them.

Right... but I'm not questioning the Divinity of Jesus Christ! I'm pointing out, among other things, that there were numerous books which were vying for inclusion in the Scriptures--some of which contained nothing against the Faith (e.g. Book of Jubilees, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.), but which were not actual Scripture... while other books are largely less than emotionally-inspiring or earth-moving (e.g. Jude, 2 Chronicles, Leviticus, Philemon, etc.), but there WERE included; it's clear that "interior feeling" simply can't be the final arbiter of "Scripture vs. non-Scripture".

They believe it because the word of God always accomplishes the purpose unto which He sends it.

I think I understand the sentiment behind your idea... but that wouldn't help, in this case, for two reasons: (a) it's too vague to prove that "the 66-book Protestant Bible is not only the complete Word of God, but it's superior to all other authorities", and (b) Sts. Peter, James, and John are obviously NOT believing Jesus and the Father "because the Bible told them so", at the Transfiguration... so it doesn't apply to your case.

And when Jesus is tempted by the Devil in the wilderness, He does not say, "Wait, I've got to look up something in the rabbinical writings, be with you in a second."

:) Right. But since I'm not arguing for the "supreme authority of the Talmud and the Mishnah", that isn't germane to my point.

He beat back every temptation by relying on God's word alone.

He beat back three temptations by quoting the OT, yes... but this is a far cry from saying that "the 66-book Protestant Bible is above all other authoritites". It certainly shows that Scripture is USEFUL... but it doesn't come close to proving that it's supreme, much less that it's to be used as the SOLE authority. (Think of the many times Jesus cast out demons, in Scripture; in how many of them did the Gospels portray Him as quoting Scripture? That's one isolated example.)

When tempted with hunger, He declares, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of ... the rabbis plus God? Oh wait! No, He He doesn't say that. He says, what do we need to live on? The word of God.

That's not quite what He says. "But he answered, "It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4) Among other things, you'd need to show that the 66-book Protestant Bible contained "every word that proceeded from the Mouth of God"... and even Scripture disowns that idea (cf. John 21:25).

That, all by itself, is a declaration of sufficiency. If you want to live spiritually, you must feed on the word of God. Bread for the body, and Scripture for the soul.

That's poetic (and I agree with the sentiments, if not your exact understanding of the terms); but not only is this not any sort of demonstration of "sufficiency" (and again, that needs to be defined clearly, and its parameters specified) of the 66-book Protestant Bible, it doesn't even prove the "sufficiency" of ALL the Scriptures... much less show that it is designed to be used ALONE.

So here and in many other places, your artificial requirement for a formal declaration of sufficiency is met with example after example of the sufficiency of God's word in action.

Back up. First of all, it's hardly an artificial requirement: if someone claims that "Scripture alone is sufficient" (see above for the maifold problems with that idea), then logic demands that the idea be proven beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. not simply "lead" someone who was emotionally disposed toward the idea in the first place, due to upbringing, etc.). I didn't invent the Law of Non-Contradiction (and the other requirements of a sound and valid argument); they predated me. No argument--no matter how emotionally appealing, and no matter how resonant with our personal histories and preferences--can dodge the responsibility of being proven (beyond all doubt, in the case of a priori arguments, or beyond all reasonable doubt, in the case of a posteriori arguments such as this). And no self-contradiction, even an emotionally enticing one, can be accepted as true.

Second of all, I'm afraid you haven't shown anything even approximating a proof of your idea. You've shown examples of where Scripture is authoritative (but I believed that already); you've not proven your main thesis (that the 66-book Protestant Bible is the highest authority, is completely sufficient [and that needs a great deal of clarification], and is designed to be used ALONE.

Another example: Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:29-31)

And this gets us much closer to a formal statement of sufficiency. Many things could have been included in John's Gospel, but were left out with intentionality, because those things that were written were sufficient to do what? To produce faith in Jesus Christ, and through said faith, life in His name.

Again: hold on. Where does it have the word "sufficient", anywhere? If I say that "I filled up your car with gas, that you might drive home," it doesn't logically imply that nothing else (e.g. oil in the engine, sufficient skill at driving, knowledge of how to get home, sufficiently charged battery, etc.) is needed. It proves NECESSITY (perhaps--someone might even argue against that, with some merit), not SUFFICIENCY. This is only the first of numerous problems (many of which were cited before); for example: St. John was writing this about HIS GOSPEL. Does this prove the "sufficiency" of the Gospel of St. John? If so, then it's proven far too much... because the rest of the Bible would then be proven superfluous, by the standard you're using, here.

So if something was left out, it was because the Holy Spirit deemed it unnecessary to the stated purpose.

I'd gently note that the stated purpose never claims "sufficiency"; also, A -> B does not logically imply "not A" -> "not B".

Impliedly then, whatever is left in, is sufficient for the intended purpose, producing faith in Christ.

See above.

This is reinforced in 2 Timothy 3:14-17. In these debates it is easy to skip past verse 15 and jump right into the debate over "profitable" in verse 16, but that would be an error:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(2 Timothy 3:15)

This is the ascription of a certain kind of power to the Scriptures.

It is (and no faithful Catholic would ever deny that). But again: despite any sentimental comfort, or even despite frustrations which might arise from seeing a debating opponent not get enthusiastic about what's dear to us, we can't afford to let our hearts run away with our heads, when arguing logical points. "A certain type of power" is very vague, and it doesn't come close to the requirements for proving "sola Scriptura"; in general, even 1,000,000 enthusiastic endorsements of the heart do not equal even one tiny, cold, unattractive logical fact. This citation (2 Tim 3) has many of the same difficulties mentioned above: it never insists on EXCLUSIVE power of the Scriptures to do these good things, it never says that Scripture is designed to do these things ALONE, and it doesn't specify the CONTENT of the Scriptures (which certainly seem to be the Old Testament, given the context--and I assume you're not trying to prove "sola Tanakh"--the "Old Testament Alone"), among other issues.

So setting aside all the more difficult questions, cloning, etc., we see here an unambiguous declaration that Scripture, unmixed with anything else, has the power to lead one to faith in Jesus, and if such a one has faith, he also has the Holy Spirit, given as a guarantee of his eternal life to come, and if one has the Holy Spirit, do you really think God would let such a person rest easy in sin? Even the most modern, technologically advanced sin? Of course not.

Well... again, I sympathize with your sentiments, but do you see what you've done? Through a lack of well-defined terms, a presence of numerous suppressed premises (some of which are false--e.g. the assumption that "Holy Scriptures" must be identical with the 66-book Protestant Bible, which didn't yet exist in its entirety at the writing of 2 Timothy, etc.), and a lack of conclusions which demonstrably and clearly flow from their conclusions (e.g. saying that "[x] succeeded in doing [y]" does not logically imply that "[x] succeeded in doing [y] ALONE", especially since you also include other factors, yourself--e.g. faith, the activity of the Holy Spirit, etc.; and it does not logically imply that "a lack of [x] will certainly entail a lack of [y]", etc.), your argument is not yet valid . You would need to address the aforementioned points, methodically, in order for logic (which is no respecter of enthusiasms) to grant your argument validity.

Paul has backloaded the sufficiency argument, such that the emphasis all comes at the end, embedded in the word "perfect" (artios), which describes the result of relying on the word of God for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.

There's a disagreement, already: the word "artios" can be translated as "perfect", but it's usually rendered "equipped"... whereas the word "teleios", for example, is more commonly rendered "perfect" (in line with the etymology of the English word "perfect" --> Latin: "per factum", meaning "already made/complete/brought to its end)... and the Epistle of St. James uses that word to describe "steadfastness":

"And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect (Gk: teleioi = "perfect") and complete (Gk: holokleroi = "completely equipped"), lacking in nothing (Gk: medeni leipomenoi = "lacking not even one thing"). (James 1:4)

That's a FAR stronger statement than 2 Timothy 3:17, and it's applied to steadfastness. Say what you like about steadfastness and its likely connections to faith and Scripture: it's simply a fact that "Scripture" and "steadfastness" are not identical, and that "faith" and "steadfastness" (though more closely related) are not identical. So either your reliance upon the idea of "perfectly equipped" proves two much (i.e. it proves that two distinct ideas--Scripture, and steadfastness--are both SOLELY sufficient for salvific purposes... which is logically absurd), or it proves that the Protestant understanding of 2 Timothy 3 needs to be altered.

But as I said before, a formal statement of sufficiency could be left out, and the fact of sufficiency would still be true, which is why the examples matter.

Given the current definition of "sola Scriptura", I don't see how you could maintain that. If you do NOT hold to sola Scriptura, then I could see some "wiggle room" for your idea, here... but not before then. "Sola Scriptura" is, among other things, a logical claim... and as such, it needs to obey logical rules in order to be considered valid. I haven't seen that happen, yet.

If we would follow Jesus, our touchstone of essential truth must be the same as His, and that is every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

That is absolutely true! But our issue is to find the content and the parameters of that "essential truth", especially since people of good will, all of whom appeal to Christ for authorization, disagree on that very thing.

[paladinan]

I'm finally working on some of the backlog...

The church has turned baptism into modern day circumcision.

In the sense of it ordinarily being necessary for salvation, Jesus Christ did that (cf. John 3:5, Matthew 28:18-20, etc.), St. Paul (among other places) did that (Colossians 2:11-12), and St. Peter did that (1 Peter 3:21, etc.)... so I suppose you could say that "the Church" did it, if you mean it in the right way. I suspect that wasn't your meaning, though. :)

Baptism is NOT required to be saved.

See above.

Even Peter disqualified water baptism as being able to confer salvation. 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Er... are you under the mistaken impression that the Catholic Church views valid Baptism to be contingent on "removing dirt from the body"? Sort of like, "Father, you need to try again... there's still dirt on this Catechumen, so he must not be baptized, yet!" That really isn't what the Church teaches.

Otherwise, you are saying that if a person puts their faith in Christ for salvation and dies before they can be baptized, they are going to hell.

You must have missed my previous posts about "baptism of desire", etc. (#620)...

If baptism saves you, Christ died for nothing.

Oh, don't be silly! Christ is the One Who saves... THROUGH the Baptism which HE instituted! I might as well say to you, using the same reasoning, "You don't believe it was Jesus Who restored the blind man's sight! You think it was the MUD which He smeared on the man's eyes! You're denying the divine power of Jesus!"