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.

"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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

"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."

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.

Thank you for your courteous response. Just to clarify, I am no longer a Roman Catholic as I prayed for God to reveal the truth about him to me and he led me to a Sunday School teacher who showed me John 10:27-30, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one."

From these verses, God opened my eyes to the truth of the Gospel that through faith in Jesus Christ I can HAVE eternal life and never be cast or plucked out of his hand. At the time, I had no reason at all to question the concept of the trinity and when Jesus used the phrase "my hand" and then "my Father's hand" and ended with "I and the Father are one", I understood or believed what he said. I started attending a non-denominational, Bible believing church and then attended and graduated from a Non-Denom Bible College. What I came to understand regarding the Trinity is, first of all, we cannot really grasp the entire truth of it with our finite, mortal minds. It is just too complex and immense to comprehend but what we have been told from Scripture must be understood in its entirety.

I believe Jesus Christ is Almighty God in the flesh, incarnate, God with us. Jesus is also called the Son of God and Son of Man and those titles have to do with both relationship and role but they are still one, true God. The Holy Spirit is also God and is manifested to us with a certain role, as well, but is still God. There is only one God who has revealed himself in three forms, so to speak, yet they are still all one - not just one in "purpose", but really one. Others have spent centuries trying to explain it all and I have no intention of repeating their views on this thread. Like I said, there are certain "mysteries" that we can only scratch the surface on understanding but I have faith that one day, when we "know as we are known", it will all make sense.

You say you left the Catholic Church but you didn't say why. Is that something you would be willing to share?

You quoted the scripture where He saws," I and the father are one and admitted you remembered it from the Catholic teaching as them being one.

Lets look at the times He makes that statement when He is praying for Himself, for His disciples and when He is praying for all believers which include you an I.

John 17:1-11 (New King James Version)

John 17

Jesus Prays for Himself

¹ Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, ² as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should^[a] give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. ³ And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. ⁴ I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. ⁵ And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Is Jesus lying when He prayed that we would understand that the Father is the only true God and Jesus is the Christ that He sent?

Jesus Prays for His Disciples

⁶ “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. ⁷ Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. ⁸ For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.
⁹ “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. ¹⁰ And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. ¹¹ Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me,^[b] that they may be one as We are.

He is asking His Father to His Father to make the disciples one as they are one. Is He asking the Father to make them GOD. He would have to be asking with your definition of He and the Father's oneness.

Jesus Prays for All Believers

²⁰ “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will^[a] believe in Me through their word; ²¹ that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. ²² And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: ²³ I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.
²⁴ “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. ²⁵ O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. ²⁶ And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

I can't see how anyone can read this and not understand He is asking the Father to give us the same anointing He gave Jesus. That is how we can have the mind of Christ allow His Spirit to guide us .

That is exactly what happened in Acts. They were doing God's will instead of man's will in God's name as we have now.

John 8:13-18 John 8:13-18 (New King James Version)

Jesus Defends His Self-Witness

¹³ The Pharisees therefore said to Him, “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true.”
¹⁴ Jesus answered and said to them, “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going. ¹⁵ You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. ¹⁶ And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. ¹⁷ It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. ¹⁸ I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”

If they are not two separate entities as Jesus claims, is He lying?

From your post.

What I came to understand regarding the Trinity is, first of all, we cannot really grasp the entire truth of it with our finite, mortal minds. It is just too complex and immense to comprehend but what we have been told from Scripture must be understood in its entirety.

Others have spent centuries trying to explain it all and I have no intention of repeating their views on this thread. Like I said, there are certain "mysteries" that we can only scratch the surface on understanding but I have faith that one day, when we "know as we are known", it will all make sense.

I contend this is all from the father of lies and deception.

Lets look at a couple of times Jesus spoke of how we are to understand Him.

Mark 10:14-15 (New King James Version)

¹⁴ But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. ¹⁵ Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

Luke 18:16-17 (New King James Version)

^{16 But Jesus called them to Him and said, "Let the little children come to Me and do not forbid them such is the kingdom of God 17} Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

God says He sent his Son to die for my sins and is at His right hand interceding for me. It was good enough for me when I was a little kid as I stated earlier. I see no reason to believe different now.?

Thanks for the conversation and God bless you. BVB

How can a righteous God put a penalty of death as a sentence for us disagreeing with Him. Especially if we were incapable of doing so as He created us with free will?

Sin is "missing the mark", not "disagreeing" with God. We do have a free will and with that free will, practically from our first breath we take, we exhibit it. You can see it in your own grandson that from his early months he was "me" centered. Remember his "terrible twos"? Three is probably still in that stage. As much as you love him, you know he is human and, by his own will, he has resisted correction, insisted on his own way, and, even now, is developing the traits of sinfulness. Nobody has to teach us, we figure it out on our own.

That is the sin Adam committed. God told Adam he was not to eat of the tree. Satan convinced Adam to disagree with God.

Satan's sin was pride - believing he could replace God. Satan convinced Eve to not believe God's words and he deceived her into thinking God was holding something back from her that would benefit her. "You will not die.",he told her, "He knows if you eat it, you will be like gods, knowing good from evil." So Eve took the fruit and ate it and gave it to Adam and he ate it, too. It was far more than a "disagreement" with God. It was doubting him, disbelieving him, and wanting something you cannot have. We are all guilty of those very things. And God calls this disobedience "sin".

The only way a fair and/or a righteous God could administer such a penalty is to prove that a man just like Adam was capable of that task.

No, a just and holy God cannot allow sin in his presence. He cannot look upon sin. All throughout the Old Testament times, God was showing man the devastating result of his sin and that the penalty for sin is death. When God made clothing of animal skins for Adam and Eve as they left the Garden, he was, even then, demonstrating that death, shedding of blood, was needed. Both Cain and Abel knew that sacrifices were required by God. Cain offered up his fruits and vegetables but Abel offered up an animal. God accepted Abel's offering and not Cain's because he required a blood offering for sin. Cain offered instead what he wanted and disobeyed God.

No human could ever live a perfect life because the sin nature that started with our first parents was handed down to us, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). In Leviticus 17:11, we hear, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.". The purpose of Jesus Christ was not to show anyone that a human can attained perfection, it was for God himself to make atonement for all our souls. Only a God/man could live a perfect sinless life and offer that life, shed his blood, in payment for all of our sins. If Jesus was merely a man, he could not make atonement for anyone's sins but his own. This was the only way we could be redeemed, by having the "Lamb of God" sacrificed in our place, to be the propitiation for our sins.

I believe Jesus was that man.

I believe Jesus was way more than a man who happened to be perfect, he was God himself, incarnate, in the flesh, so that he may redeem all who place their trust in him.

I John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura