Answer this then...
WHY isn't the Bible sufficient according to Catholics?
What is lacking in it that makes it inadequate for the man of God to be complete?
What is so important that God left out of Scripture that someone feels they need to add later?
WHY is sola Scriptura not valid?
Let me answer them slightly out of order as I think that may be more helpful.
WHY is sola Scriptura not valid?
Becaise there is no objective authority or fact that states sola scriptura is taught in Scripture.
What is so important that God left out of Scripture that someone feels they need to add later?
This is a loaded question in that it implies God is careless with his facts (which is not the Catholic claim). But I'll answer it anyway.
We read from Scripture itself the following: John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
This follows: 21:24 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
So the context is clear: verse 25 is clearly saying that there are many other things Jesus did that are *also* helpful so that "we know his testimony is true", that aren't recorded. This obviously necessitates a greater repository of Truth than is contained in the written Word.
What is lacking in it that makes it inadequate for the man of God to be complete?
See above. If you have issue with the fact that everything Jesus did is not in Scripture, take it up with St. John. In addition to this though, no one is saying Scripture doesn't "complete" the man of God. It most certainly does. See below.
WHY isn't the Bible sufficient according to Catholics?
Scripture IS sufficient to "complete" the man of God, but just as any knight isn't "complete" with just a sword, neither is the man of God.
You see, this is the point that every anti-Catholic refuses to acknowledge: Scripture is one part, a vital part yes, but only ONE part of completing the man of God. And there exists no Scripture that says differently (except in the OPINIONS of some men).
One other thing: John 14:26 says the comforter will teach us all things. The comforter, not Scripture. If indeed Scripture was the only thing needed to learn about the Truth, then why would Jesus send the Comforter? Why not just tell his disciples, “Read the Bible”?
I’ll give it a quick go:
>>”WHY is sola Scriptura not valid? “
Scripture *alone* doesn’t exist in reality. E.g., in your case, you’re reading it and getting some meaning from it, different meaning than someone else might. So it’s never really scripture alone.
Secondly, it fails it’s own test. If you mean by sola scriptura that “scripture alone is entirely sufficient for all doctrine...” that doctrine is not in scripture. So the doctrine is self-contradicting.
Thirdly in fails in practice to result in the most basic requirement of “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
In summary, sola scriptura is a concept, not a reality; it is unscriptural and internally contradictory and it fails in practice.
What is so important that God left out of Scripture that someone feels they need to add later?
Ping me if you EVER get an answer to THIS!!
“Answer this then...WHY isn’t the Bible sufficient according to Catholics?”
Why are you always so wrong about what Catholics believe?
MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY
By JAMES AKIN
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 10
October 1993
Up Front
By Karl Keating
Letters
Dragnet
CAN YOU STOUP (SIC) TO CONQUER?
By KARL KEATING
THE WHITE MAN’S BURDEN
By PATRICK MADRID
Sidebar
Universal Negatives
By James Akin
Sidebar
Material and Formal Sufficiency
By James Akin
Classic Apologetics
My Conversion to the Catholic Faith
By Most Rev. Duane G. Hunt
Fathers Know Best
Old Testament Canon
Old Testament Guide
Job
By Antonio Fuentes
Verse by Verse
Quick Questions
Subscribe
Permissions
MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.
Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.
It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter .aspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.
French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, `All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.’ .. `Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge” (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).
This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to g.asp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency. http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp
“What is lacking in it that makes it inadequate for the man of God to be complete?”
Is there a table of contents inspired by God?
“What is so important that God left out of Scripture that someone feels they need to add later?”
Again, is there a table of contents inspired by God?
“WHY is sola Scriptura not valid?”
1) It is self-refuting in that it appears nowhere in scripture and goes against scripture.
2) Invented and maintained only by heretics.