Replies

Carl wrote, in reply to my request for a Scriptural citation of "sola Scriptura":

An example is found in 2 Timothy 3, 4. [...] You see paladinan, Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus (3:15). He teaches that the Scriptures are useful for teaching, reproof (rebuking), correcting, and training in righteousness (3:16).

Would it surprise you to hear that the Catholic Church is completely in unison with you, on that belief? The Holy Scriptures are indeed God-breathed, vital, and utterly necessary, and to throw out even one scrap of it would be an intolerable error.

Because the Scriptures have this character, they thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work (3:17).

They certainly do (though you added the word "thoroughly", as your own gloss). But do you not see that this does not, in any sense, mandate the exclusive use of Scripture (i.e. "Scripture ALONE")? No one (least of all, the Catholic Church) is saying that the Scriptures are not NECESSARY; but that is not at all the same as saying that they are SUFFICIENT. Sacred Tradition (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.) is also necessary, since it also is the Word of God; and infallible interpretation is also needed (cf. Acts 8:31), without which the meaning of Scripture can be hard to understand and easy to distort, even unto destruction (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-17), at very least.

So Paul tells Timothy that he must preach this Word, even though the time is coming when people will not want to hear it, but rather will want teachers to suit their fancy, or the middle ages church’s pocketbook which is what this doctrine was meant to enhance. Not any religious significance, just a device to make fat monks fatter.

Come, now! Even you know that your last two thoughts (re: monks and pocket-books) are mere playground taunts, with no substance other than insult value! If a Catholic were (God forbid) to denounce you as a mere pawn in a game of manipulative televangelists and preachers who bilk their congregations for at least 10% of their income (I assume you do contribute financially to your faith community? Do you do it to "make preachers fat"?), they would be just as illogical and unjustified. As for the warning that people will go astray after false teachings: do you not see that any Catholic could hurl the same back at you? It doesn't help much to point triumphantly at such a verse, say "This must refer to Catholics!" (I don't see that claim in Scripture, bythe way), and walk away in self-satisfaction; the claim must be proven, or else it is mere prejudice and screed.

But back to the point: where, exactly, does St. Paul (or any other Scripture writer) say that "the Bible ALONE is to be used in matters of salvific Faith, and you are forbidden to use anythign else, on pain of endangering your salvation"? I know, full well, that the Bible is vital, useful and necessary; but I do not see any Scriptural mandate to use "the Bible alone". Can you show it to me, chapter and verse, in the "plain sense of Scripture" (i.e. without the convolutions and interpretations of the "wisdom and traditions of men")? Because I have looked, quite extensively (as have many others, far more gifted than I), and I have found no trace. If it is not there, then all claims based on "sola Scriptura" must necessarily be rejected (since "sola Scriptura" would reject itself as unbiblical).