A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholic Fidelity.Com ^ | Dave Armstrong

[GonzoII]

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

By Dave Armstrong

1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth"—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.

2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also

"Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:

"For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:

"When 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" (1 Thess. 2:13).

If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:

"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word

Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.

4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions

Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:

a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.

c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem

In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).

6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition

Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.

The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura

To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).

b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).

So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding

If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:

"If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14).

"Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).

He didn’t write about "the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught."

10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, "Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don’t matter."

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

 

[Cronos]

The Italic subfamily is a member of the Indo-European language family. It includes the Romance languages derived from Latin (Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, French, Romanian, etc.), and a number of extinct languages of the Italian Peninsula, including Umbrian, Oscan, Faliscan, and Latin itself. In the past various definitions of "Italic" have prevailed. This article uses the classification presented by the Linguist List:[1] Italic includes the Latin subgroup (Latin and the Romance languages) as well as the ancient Italic languages (Faliscan, Osco-Umbrian and two unclassified Italic languages, Aequian and Vestinian). Venetic (the language of the ancient Veneti), as revealed by its inscriptions, was also closely related to the Italic languages and is sometimes classified as Italic. However, since it also shares similarities with other Western Indo-European branches (particularly Germanic), some linguists prefer to consider it an independent Indo-European language, despite its influence on the modern Italian of the region.

Explaining terms to idiots who think they are cool, in English does not work as this is similar to banging one's head on a wall. They do not understand English or any other languages. One can attempt by trying to tell them that other languages exist, but it is a waste of time.

The main debate concerning the origin of the Italic languages is the same as that which preoccupied Greek studies for the last half of the 20th century. The Indo-Europeanists for Greek had hypothesized (see Dorian invasion, Proto-Greek language) that Greek originated outside of Greece and was brought in by invaders. Analysis of the lexical items of Mycenaean Greek, an early form of Greek, raised the issue of whether Greek had been formed in Greece from Indo-European elements brought in by migrants or invaders, mixed with elements of indigenous languages. The issue was settled in favor of an origin of Greek in Greece.

A proto-Italic homeland outside of Italy is equally as elusive as the home of the hypothetical Greek-speaking invaders. No early form of Italic is available to match Mycenaean Greek. The Italic languages are first attested in writing from Umbrian and Faliscan inscriptions dating to the 7th century BC. The alphabets used are based on the Old Italic alphabet, which is itself based on the Greek alphabet. The Italic languages themselves show minor influence from the Etruscan and somewhat more from the Ancient Greek languages. The intermediate phases between Italic and Indo-European are still in deficit, with no guarantee that they ever will be found. The question of whether Italic originated outside of Italy or developed by assimilation of Indo-European and other elements inside of Italy, approximately on or within its current range there, remains.

[Cronos]

You ain’t shirley?? Shirley not!

[bkaycee]

The Church teaches clearly that salvation is from Christ's sacrifice alone (CCC 169).

If anyone tells you differently, they are incorrect, utterly.

Apparently, Most RC's are thus confused. I thought Rome provided certainty and unity.

canon 32
"If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema."

[Cronos]

I guess the only thing I can suggest is to stay with your heretical views like solo scriptura until such time as the Spirit teaches you truth. Can you cite any verses in the Bible which say that ONLY the Bible is to be held as truth?

Why I'm Catholic (Sola Scriptura leads atheist to Catholic Church)

When I was 26, I had never once believed in God. Raised entirely without religion, I was a contented atheist and thought it was simply obvious that God did not exist. I thought that religion and reason were incompatible, and was baffled by why anyone would believe in God (I actually suspected that few people really did). After a few years in the Bible Belt, I became vocally anti-Christian. Imagine my surprise to find myself today, just three years later, a practicing Catholic who loves her faith (I entered the Church at Easter 2007). This is the chronicle of my journey.

am asked with increasing frequency why I converted to Catholicism as opposed to one of the other Christian denominations. Though this blog is sort of one long conversion story, I've never put together a post summarizing that part of my journey because that subject matter can be a hot (and divisive) topic.

My search for God really began in earnest when I started reading up on Christianity. For a couple years I'd been making half-hearted attempts to open my mind to the possibility of God's existence but it never really went anywhere. And then I stumbled across some reasonable Christian writers who laid out a logical case for Jesus having actually existed, the events as described in the New Testament having actually happened, and for Jesus being who he said he was (former atheist Lee Strobel's Case for Christ has a nice, quick summary). Not that these authors "proved" their case irrefutably or that no arguments could be made against them, but they had a much more compelling, evidence-based case than I'd thought they had. I was intrigued.

I decided to see what it meant to be a Christian. Some bad childhood experiences had left me with a bad taste in my mouth about the religion, but I decided to give it my best effort to start fresh, exploring this belief system with an open mind. I bought a copy of the Bible.

Before I even opened the cover, we had a problem.

I wanted to know if the people who did the English translation of this version were said to have been inspired by God as the writers of the original texts were. When I found out the answer was no, I was concerned. Translators have a lot of leeway and can really impact a text. If this book could potentially be the key to people knowing or not knowing God, I was uneasy about reading a 21st century English version of texts that were written in far different cultures thousands of years ago, translated by average people. Could God not have inspired all translators? Though I was concerned, I decided to set the issue aside for the time being and move on.
So I started reading. I decided to skip ahead to the New Testament since that's where Jesus comes in. And, as with the Old Testament, we quickly had a problem. Here is a sort of sample discussion I'd have with whatever Christian I could find to pester with questions:

ME: Ack! I just read this part in the New Testament where Jesus tells some rich dude he has to give away all his stuff! If I decide this Christianity thing is true am I going to have to give away all my stuff?! [Worried glace at brand new Dell Inspiron laptop.]

FRIEND: Hah! No, don't worry, Jesus was just talking to that one guy.

ME: Where does it say that? Does he later clarify that that instruction was only for that one guy?

FRIEND: No, but that's clearly how he meant it.

ME: That's not clear to me. Anyway, there's this part where he tells this woman Martha that her sister Mary did the right thing by putting Jesus before trivial stuff. Was that only a lesson for her?

CHRISTIAN: No, that's a lesson for all of us.

ME: [Flipping to last page to look for answer key.] Where is that clarified?

This usually ended with my Christian acquaintances telling me to let the Holy Spirit guide me (and probably making a mental note to find less annoying friends).
My confusion about all of this made me wonder how people who are severely unintelligent could use the Bible as their guide. I'm probably in the middle of the Bell curve on intelligence, and I was really struggling. For that matter, what about the illiterate? Widespread literacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, yet people who couldn't read couldn't use the Bible as their guide. They'd have to go through another, fallible person, which seemed dangerous.

Taking all of this as a whole, the writing was on the wall, so to speak. Christianity did not seem to be the path to God, if he even did exist. At least not for me. I was just too sinful, too selfish to trust myself to get it right. I felt as adrift as ever in terms of the big ethical questions of our day. Though I thought I might have "experienced" God or the Holy Spirit or something from outside the material world a few times in my exploration, using the Christian holy book to find out how God would want me to live was just not working. I was leaning towards moving on to the next religion, seeking God through some other belief system. I prayed for guidance.


Around this time someone told me that one of the Christian denominations claimed that God did leave us this "answer key" I'd been yearning for. I found out that the Catholic Church claimed to be a sort of divinely-guided Supreme Court, that God guided this Church to be inerrant in its official proclamations about what is right and wrong, how to interpret the Bible, how to know Jesus Christ, and all other questions of God and what he wants us to do.

That got my attention.

Clearly there was a need for this. Surely I was not the only person to ever feel lost in the world, unable to trust myself to objectively interpret the Bible to discern what God wants from us, unable to clearly tell which of my conclusions about right and wrong were guided by the Holy Spirit and which were guided by deeply-rooted selfishness (or perhaps something worse).

Now, obviously I wasn't going to become Catholic. I mean, the Catholic Church is weird and antiquated and sometimes the people in it do seriously bad stuff. But I was interested to at least explore this line of thinking and see what I found.

I could have never, ever imagined what I'd find. Reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church was like nothing I'd ever experienced. This was truth. I knew it. I'd finally found it. It described God, our relationship to him, the Bible, Jesus, moral truths -- the entire human experience -- in a way that resonated on a deep level.

[Cronos]

Actually you ARE trying to convert us -- which shows that you actually DO care and you are Christian. We may disagree on many, many points, but I sincerely believe that you are an exemplary Christian.

A Lutheran poster, Balteshazzar wrote this on another post once

There is a difference between anti-Catholicism and Christianity, just as there is a difference between anti-Protestantism and Christianity. The line between either of the two is not always easy to find; and it is regularly transgressed from both sides with the result of doing so being anger, misunderstanding, misuse of God’s Word, closing of mind and heart, communication that grieves the heart of Him who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, and scandal that engenders scorn in the hearts of unbelieving, but often sincerely inquiring, observers.

A real non-Catholic (as opposed to an anti-Catholic) sincerely believes in what he/she believes and also believes that the Church is wrong. But he is civil, he is truthful, he is honest and he is a true seekign Christian -- such as you, Mr. Rogers

Here in the flagging moments of 2011, we all seek to truly expound to each other what we truly believe in and we know that we all believe in One Lord, One God -- Jesus Christ, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God

All us Christians may be riven by little issues but we believe in a loving God, a Triune God, a God who cares so much for us insignificant creations that HE came down to become one of us, who cares so much for us that His Holy Spirit aids us in our quest to love Him.

What a marvellous God we have! May He bless us all and protect us in the next year. Though the days may seem dark, we will not despair as we know Our Lord and Our God is with us.

[Cronos]

Whoa there -- as I said, Salvation comes from God alone.

God's grace is what God freely gives and we accept or reject of our own free will

As I repeated, the Church teaches that only God can save us. If that weren’t true, then Christ died for nothing. All that we do is respond with faith and obedience to God’s offer of grace in Christ. We insist that this is a lifelong commitment that should grow over time. God’s grace grows within us as we trust in God more and follow his commandments. The final outcome of a life of faith and obedience is eternal life with God.

Salvation is by God alone

[bkaycee]

I could have never, ever imagined what I'd find. Reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church was like nothing I'd ever experienced. This was truth. I knew it. I'd finally found it. It described God, our relationship to him, the Bible, Jesus, moral truths -- the entire human experience -- in a way that resonated on a deep level.

Funny, reading the catechism had the opposite effect on me. It was a dead document that provided more questions than answers and drove me to read the bible. The bible, being the Very Word Of God, was life transforming for me.

I realize now that God had illuminated my mind to understand His Word and His "Good News". I shortly there after gave My Life to Christ believing by Grace alone, thru Faith alone, in Christ alone.

[Valpal1]

Because they were commanded by God to teach the Torah to their children and to write scripture on their doors and gates.

Their religious and cultural traditions are based on a high level of literacy and the study of Torah is considered the highest form of worship.

[Cronos]

Note -- you are mixing up justification and salvation

Salvation as I repeated to you and is clearly there in CCC 169, Salvation is from Christ's sacrifice alone.

Sanctification is Christ actively saving us

take Paul’s statements about Abraham being justified by faith in Galatians 3:6 and Romans 4:3–4 and put them together with James’s statement about Abraham being justified by his work of offering up Isaac in James 2:21, James 2:21 asks, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?" From this James concludes in verse 22: "You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works." This language of "active along with" and works "completing" faith is the language of cooperation. If you examine 1 John chapters 4 and 5 of this small letter carefully, you will see that "this" refers to acts of love of neighbor, love of God, holding to orthodox teaching, and so on. In other words, John is not giving a blank check for assurance of heaven. He is giving a conclusion of a long list of indicators by which a person can know he is saved. John agrees with James. Good works give a relative assurance that one is in good standing with God.

01 02 03 04 05 What spirits are of God, and what are not. We must love one another, because God has loved us. [1] Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. [2] By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: [3] And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world. [4] You are of God, little children, and have overcome him. Because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. [5] They are of the world: therefore of the world they speak, and the world heareth them.

[6] We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. [7] Dearly beloved, let us love one another, for charity is of God. And every one that loveth, is born of God, and knoweth God. [8] He that loveth not, knoweth not God: for God is charity. [9] By this hath the charity of God appeared towards us, because God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we may live by him. [10] In this is charity: not as though we had loved God, but because he hath first loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins.

Or take Hebrews 12:14

[11] Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most peaceable fruit of justice. [12] Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees, [13] And make straight steps with your feet: that no one, halting, may go out of the way; but rather be healed. [14] Follow peace with all men, and holiness: without which no man shall see God. [15] Looking diligently, lest any man be wanting to the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up do hinder, and by it many be defiled.

Why does he say this? Because God is holy and, if we’re going to live with God forever, we too must be holy. So our entire life should be a pursuit of the holiness that Christ gained for us by his death on the cross. God desires to put this holiness within us, or as Hebrews 12:10 says, "that we may share his holiness." That is the ultimate rationale behind the Catholic view of salvation: to share in the holiness of God.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You're not reading attentively. Here's what we agree upon:

• Jesus Christ is the Word of God.
• Holy Scripture is the Word of God.
• But Jesus Christ "is" not Scripture --- because
• Jesus Christ is a Person,
• and is God: but
• Scripture is not a Person, and
• Scripture is not God.

That's because the verb "is" is not used in a mathematical sense, which would require that the word "Scripture" and the words "Jesus Christ" would be interchangeable: if so, one could say, for instance, "Scripture died on the Cross." This is an absurdity based on the mistake of thinking that "is" in this context means "identical."

Scripture is not of couse, "just" a mere book like any other. Its principal author is God. It contains supernaturally revealed truths. It is the Word of God in the words of men.

But "Scripture" did not die for my sins; and I could be a destitute illiterate with no contact with "Scripture," but he saved by the redemptive work of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

[sr4402]

Those who oppose sola scriptura can often be noticed opposing the bible itself if you pay attention and I'm sure they will not pay any attention to your post. But I sure noticed it.

Your quite right, but it is also a subtle attack on the Authority and person of the Lord Jesus Christ. In placing the Traditions of Men above the Scriptures, it is an attempt to place themselves in Authority above Christ and His Word.

It is an attempt to put themselves Above and Over believers and to tell them what to believe. Thus when Christ says "My sheep hear my voice", they believe it is their church and dismiss what Christ said "the voice of a stranger, they will not follow".

He also said "and they follow Me", therefore, a choice is presented, to follow their church or follow Christ, because they claim to be authoritative above His Word.

As I have noted previously, Pope Pius IX gave ALL SALVATION to Mary in 1849. The UBI PRIMAM has not been rescinded and is still posted on Catholic Sites. Therefore there really is no choice at all. Either you obey Piux IX and believe ALL your Salvation is by Mary, or you Follow Christ Alone.

[Cronos]

1. Teaching the Torah does not mean "reading" -- many ancient peoples retained their histories orally. Think of the Homeric epics or the Mahabharatha and Ramayana etc.

2. To write teh scripture on their doors and gates -- illiterate Jews in Europe got their rabbis to do things like this. It would have been the same in BC times.

Being literate, investing the time and effort to do so was not worth it for most people before the invention of the Gutenburg press and paper made from wood pulp

Before that books were just too expensive, too rare for most to have. Even the Pentateuch would be restricted to a few copies -- remember that it was "lost" during the period of Kings and found again during Josiah's time. What do you think the Israelites were doing during that time? It was oral

[Cronos]

Good for you. The Bible is the gold standard for us Catholics. The Catechism only hold the defined doctrines of the faith and aids just like a pastor/preacher/bible study class aids.

[Mr Rogers]

“All us Christians may be riven by little issues but we believe in a loving God, a Triune God, a God who cares so much for us insignificant creations that HE came down to become one of us, who cares so much for us that His Holy Spirit aids us in our quest to love Him.

What a marvellous God we have! May He bless us all and protect us in the next year. Though the days may seem dark, we will not despair as we know Our Lord and Our God is with us.”

On this final day of 2010, all I’ll say is...AMEN!

[The Comedian]

The Logos is, was, and always will be complete. It is constituted of a single Message from a single Source. No human traditions are necessary or even to be tolerated, let alone mixed with the Logos.

That you are unable to distinguish between the Word and human rituals, traditions, and faery tales just means we have no common ground upon which to discuss more esoteric matters.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[CynicalBear]

You contradict the early history of your own early Church belief.

Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture as an authority, and the Word of God itself never teaches that tradition is inspired. The Scriptures give numerous warnings against tradition, ('See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ' (Col. 2:8); 'Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition....They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' (Matt. 15:6, 9; cf. Mark 7:3-13; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22; 1 Peter 1:18) and the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a gnostic heresy. For the church Fathers apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture. The teaching of the Fathers is this: What the apostles initially proclaimed and taught orally, they later committed to writing in the New Testament.

Irenaeus succinctly states it in these words:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1, in Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaugh, trans., in The Writings of Irenaeus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874)

[bkaycee]

The Catechism only hold the defined doctrines of the faith and aids just like a pastor/preacher/bible study class aids.

The catechism I suppose is somewhat similar to a protestant "confessions" except that protestant aids/commentary/summaries/confessions are TOTALLY based on the Bible.

[Valpal1]

Yet somehow Jesus was literate while most in his station were not due to the lack of “value” it would have in the culture in which he lived.

Your belief is based on the assumption that ancient Jews were just like everyone else, when it’s rather obvious that they were not. Which is why they are still here and not in the dustbin of history with the Babylonians, Phoenecians, Sumerians, etc.

[sr4402]

Its principal author is God.

This is why it is hard for you to take it in to your life. Because you believe there are other authors than God. For if you say He is the "Principal Author", then there are others according to this thought. I suspect the others are your Popes and Authorities. Therefore it is really hard for you to trust it.

The Lord Jesus Christ said John 6:57 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me". You believe this is refering to what you call the "Eucharist" .

We call it Eating the Word of God, and living being tranformed (Romans 12:1,2) by God. Not just once in a while. This is how I eat Him and live in Him as much as possible. The results are Three times the Love (John 15:21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."

This I testify is true and that "Love is of God" just as the Apostle John said in 1 John 4.

The weak view of the Scriptures makes it hard for you to EAT HIM this way. You have to worry about all the different Authors just as you have said.

Whereas for me, there is only ONE AUTHOR of SCRIPTURE, ONE WHO INSPIRED IT, ONE WHO BRINGS IT TO PASS, ONE WHOM I EAT and ONE who is Worthy to be called "THE WORD MADE FLESH" - The Lord Jesus Christ Alone.

[Natural Law]

"Nothing there refutes Sola Scriptura."

I have yet to see any proponent of Sola Scriptura defend it as Scriptural in origin or to supply any Scripture that affirms the position that 100% of the Revealed Word of God is contained in Scripture. Further, there is nothing in Scripture that establishes or defines Canon or provides a listing of the limited number of works from among the hundreds of contemporary works that comprise Scripture.