metmom,
:) Thank you for the tech update; I confess to being a bit out of the loop on such things!
Anyway... you wrote, in reply to my comment:
[paladinan]
If Sola Scriptura were truly taught in the Bible, surely it wouldn't be that difficult to cite the Scripture verse(s)?
[metmom] That's been done, numerous times in the past and is rejected by Catholics every single time.
Well... yes, but (at least in my case, and in several others) they/we also gave *reasons* why those citations were rejected as inadequate. You'd have to address those reasons, in order to make any headway.
[paladinan]
[Scripture] claims to be God-breathed (which it is), useful for teaching, rebuking, etc. (which it is), and necessary for equipping the apostle for his work (which it is). NOWHERE does it claim to be all-sufficient... and it would be a self-refuting claim, if it had.
[metmom]
Yes it does, in 2 Timothy 3:14-17.
I addressed that already,
in a previous comment; nowhere does Scripture claim to be all-sufficient in those verses. The Greek simply doesn't say anything of the sort.
The Word of God is the sword of the Spirit.
Of course it is. But unless you find somewhwre in that sword which explicitly says to use "ONLY the sword", or (if you like) somewhere which says explicitly that "nothing but the sword is necessary", this won't help your particular case... and I really don't see anything of the sort, in Scripture. Do you?
Jesus used it against Satan in His temptation in the wilderness.
He did. That proves the necessity and value of the Scriptures (to which I already agreed--remember?). Now, your task is to prove that nothing else is necessary, in this (matter of salvific content/truth) regard.
So, if the word of God is not complete, do tell us what is missing, how you know, and where to find it documented.
Back up, a moment. I'll answer your question, but I'd like to point out a key point (no pun intended): "Sola Scriptura" made the original claim that "Scripture is all that is needed, and nothing else binds the Christian conscience" (or various permutations/variations of that--again, see this thread alone for some of those variations); moreover, sola-Scriptura adherents on this thread (and elsewhere) made the original claim that the Catholic Church is wrong in its inclusion of other elements which contain God's positive revelation (necessary for salvation). The original claimant is responsible for defending the claim, yes? It's hardly kosher to make a claim, and then dare anyone to disprove it without making your own claim solid, first! (E.g. "There's a magical invisible penguin in this room, and I dare anyone to prove that there isn't!")
As to your question, here are a few things which are missing from the Protestant (el al.) "sola" Bible:
the Book of Wisdom
the book of Sirach
the book of Baruch
the book of Tobit
the book of Judith
the book of 1 Maccabees
the book of 2 Maccabees
parts of the book of Esther
parts of the book of Daniel
...as well as:
an infallible interpreter of the Bible
an explanation of how the books of the Bible were chosen in the first place
...to name just a few. But again: before you address these (and I'd be thankful if you or someone *would* address them!), perhaps you could finish your proof that the Scriptures claim to be "all-sufficient" in content for salvation?
Do think about this: I (and those of like mind) do not say any of this in order to frustrate you (nor do I desire that). We say these things because sane reason demands that they be said. For instance:
1) If Scripture claims, even a million times, that Scripture is necessary (i.e. the faithful Christian must not throw it away or ignore it), then all that proves is that Scripture claims to be necessary. Not even a billion such mentions would go further, and prove that Scripture claims to be "sufficient ALONE". The "ALONE" is the bugaboo, here... as I (and others) have pointed out repeatedly.
2) If Scripture claims, even a million times, that Scripture is useful (and if it gives numerous examples of HOW it PROVED to be useful), then all that proves is that Scripture claims to be useful. Not even a billion such mentions would go further, and prove that Scripture claims to be "sufficient ALONE". Again: please don't fall into the nonsensical claim (as some anti-Catholic commenters do) that the Catholic Church "doesn't follow Scripture alone, therefore, they must not heed Scripture at ALL). Stuff and nonsense!
3) What is needed (to prove your case) is a clear, explicit, and unequivocal example of where Scripture claims to be all-sufficient ALONE. I really see no reference which does that. (And please look back at the link, above, before trying to recycle 2 Timothy 3, eh?)
What are the other sources that make it *complete*?
There are many ways to answer that, but here's one of the most brief:
The entirety of Divine Revelation is Jesus Christ, Who is the complete and full self-revelation of the Father (cf. John 14:9, Hebrews 1-2, etc.). When Protestants call the Bible the "Word of God", they're saying something true, but very incomplete; Jesus (and not the Book) is the true and full Word of God (cf. John 1:1), and no book--however holy and good and necessary and useful--could capture Him completely (and it explicitly says that it didn't even capture all Jesus *said and did* while on Earth, much less capture the fullness of His Divinity! cf. John 21:25). Therefore,
everything which Jesus gave us (in terms of faith and morals--I don't refer to the bits of carpentry He may have given us while on Earth, etc.) is necessary for salvation. Right? And Jesus gave us at least three things: the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:13, etc.), His spoken Words *too many references to count easily), and a Church (cf. Matthew 16:18-20, Matthew 18:15-18, 1 Timothy 3:15, etc.). It would be folly to ignore or throw away any of the above, and it would be equally unwise to assume that any one of those (save for the Holy Spirit, of course) can "do the job" ALONE.
[paladinan]
This is also logically absurd; the fact that the Scriptures claim to be the Word of God proves nothing, per se... any more than I would "prove" anything by claiming to be the infallible emperor of the universe (and, being infallible, I couldn't possibly be *wrong* about being the infallible emperor of the universe!).
[metmom]
OK, answer this question then. Is the Word of God TRUTH or not?
It is. It simply isn't the whole, complete truth (especially in the abridged, edited Protestant 66-book version!)... nor does it ever claim to be.
If it is the case that Scripture cannot be used to authenticate itself, then it certainly does not have the ability to authenticate the RCC.
Not ALONE, no... but the Church has never tried to use it alone (i.e. embraced the man-made error of Luther in that regard), anyway.
In which case, the RCC claims to infallibility and tradition, must also be held to that standard.
They must, indeed.
The RCC cannot then use its *sacred tradition* to support its use of sacred tradition.
Not ALONE, no. Do you see the difference, now?
The Apocrypha WAS added later, at the Council of Trent.
It is not recognized as Scripture by non-Catholics because it's not recognized as Scripture in the JEWISH canon. THEY didn't recognize it as Scripture.
Of course it is. But unless you find somewhwre in that sword which explicitly says to use "ONLY the sword", or (if you like) somewhere which says explicitly that "nothing but the sword is necessary", this won't help your particular case... and I really don't see anything of the sort, in Scripture. Do you?
If it's truth, what more do you need? Is there any reference in Scripture to any other sword to be used spiritually? Where can I find it?
If Scripture claims, even a million times, that Scripture is necessary (i.e. the faithful Christian must not throw it away or ignore it), then all that proves is that Scripture claims to be necessary. Not even a billion such mentions would go further, and prove that Scripture claims to be "sufficient ALONE". The "ALONE" is the bugaboo, here... as I (and others) have pointed out repeatedly.
IOW, there is NOTHING, not even the Word of God, that will convince anyone who does not want to believe Scripture is sufficient that it is.
It is. It simply isn't the whole, complete truth (especially in the abridged, edited Protestant 66-book version!)... nor does it ever claim to be.
Show us where else truth is and how we can identify it without using Scripture.