Sola Scriptura

Today, even as in the time of the Reformation, thousands of Catholics worldwide are leaving Roman Catholicism for biblical Christianity. And once again, the rallying cry of the sixteenth century, Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, is being heard.

Roman Catholic defenders have responded to this challenge by going on the offensive. A typical argument sounds something like this:

Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:

Christians have never been without the Scriptures as their rule of faith.

The unforgettable experience of two early disciples shows the fallacy of thinking that the first Christians were ever without Scripture as their rule of faith. Three days after the crucifixion, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking home. A fellow traveler, whom they took for a stranger, joined them along the way. The conversation quickly turned to the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. With deep sorrow, the disciples told the story of how the chief priests and rulers of the nation had sentenced Jesus to death and had Him crucified by the civil authorities.

To the disciples’ shock, the stranger rebuked them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25, NIV). Then beginning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets, the stranger explained to them the truths concerning Jesus in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Eventually the two disciples realized that their fellow traveler was no stranger at all but the Lord Jesus Himself! Later they recalled, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32).

The experience of those two early disciples was not unique. With the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost, and with the aid of the apostles’ teaching, Jewish Christians rediscovered their own Scriptures. Their common conviction was that the Old Testament, properly understood, was a revelation of Christ. There they found a prophetic record of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection.

The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God.

Scripture is not simply written Tradition.

Roman Catholic descriptions of the origin of the New Testament stress that the oral teachings of the apostles, Tradition, preceded the written record of those teachings, Scripture. Often the New Testament is presented as little more than a written record of Tradition, the writer’s recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ’s teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture—or, more precisely, drops Scripture to the level of Tradition.

But the New Testament Scriptures are much more than a written record of the oral teaching of the apostles; they are an inspired record. A biblical understanding of inspiration makes clear the significance of this distinction. Peter writes,

Here we see that Scripture is not “the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, NIV). The word translated “interpretation” means to solve or to explain. Peter is saying that no writer of the New Testament simply recorded his own explanation of what he had heard Jesus teach and had seen Him do. Scripture does not have “its origin in the will of man” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). The writers of the Bible did not decide that they would write a prophetic record or what would be included in Scripture. Rather, they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).

The word translated here “carried along” is found in the New Testament in Mark 2:3. There it is used with reference to the paralytic whose friends carried him to Jesus for healing. Just as the paralytic did not walk by his own power, a true prophet does not write by his own impulse. He is “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Men wrote the New Testament; “men spoke” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Their writings reflect their individual personalities and experiences. But these “men spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21). Men wrote but God was the author.

For these reasons, Scripture is revelation perfectly communicated in God-given words:

The phrase “inspired by God” is the translation of a compound term made up of the words God and to breathe. The verse can be translated: “All Scripture is God-breathed. . . “(2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). Scripture is therefore rightly called the Word of God.

In reducing Scripture to simply written Tradition, Catholic proponents are able to boost the importance of Tradition. But in doing so, they distort the meaning of inspiration and minimize the primary difference between Scripture and Tradition.

The Bible contains all essential revelation.

It is true that the New Testament does not contain a record of everything that Jesus did. John makes this clear in the conclusion of his gospel:

John’s point in concluding his gospel with this comment was to acknowledge that the life of the Lord Jesus was far too wonderful to be fully contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for Tradition. Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. Indeed, earlier in his gospel, John implies the opposite:

We can infer from this statement that John included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Significantly, he makes no reference to seven sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, or an institution such as the Roman Catholic Church—all necessary for salvation according to Roman Catholicism.

The Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: “that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV). They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith. Unlike Tradition, the Scriptures are accessible and open to all. Translations of the entire Bible have been made into the primary languages of the world, 276 in total. It is the most widely distributed and read book in all of history.

To define Roman Catholic Tradition as a font of extra-biblical revelation is to add to God’s Word. Scripture warns us “not to exceed what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). “Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). The last book of the New Testament ends with this solemn warning:

At question is the authority of Tradition, not Scripture.

There are hundreds of verses in the Bible establishing the truth that the Word of God is the church’s sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of God’s Word. The Lord Jesus taught:

Though Scriptures can be multiplied on this theme, it is not necessary to do so. The Roman Catholic Church agrees that the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith and that all theology must rest upon it. There is no question as to the sufficiency or authority of the Word of God.

The controversy revolves around the identity of God’s Word. Namely, is the Word of God Scripture and Tradition? Or, is the Word of God Scripture alone?

In the ongoing debate, Roman Catholic proponents enjoy taking the offensive by challenging non-Catholics to prove that God intended that the Scriptures alone were to serve as the church’s rule of faith. “Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?” they demand.

Though this tactic is effective in putting their opponents on the defensive, it is in fact misleading. Both sides agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority. The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture.

The point of controversy is Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradition is also the Word of God.

The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church’s rule of faith? This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate. And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradition and the Magesterium, the burden of proof lies with Rome.

Adapted from The Gospel According to Rome (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1995).

Notes

Been occupied with preparing for the next storm, and other things. 79.4" of snow for the season. Up to 11'' is expected for the weekend, taking us up over the 90" mark! Send the global warming.

That is the point. There's nothing in Scripture you can solidly point to and say here is the immacualte conception.

"Solidly point to" need not even be an actual statement, but like with the Trinity, it could be based upon the presuppositions RCs argue for it, that a sinless vessel was essential to bring forth Christ, and that kecharitomene in Lk. 1:28 means "full of grace," and thus sinless, and that she was the pure ark, etc., none of which is what Scripture teaches , and is actually contrary to what is taught.

Unless you're claiming that "it must be in the Bible to be true", then you have no case at all.

Once again you are relying upon a strawman of SS, as it does not claim that something must be in the Bible to be true, lest we'll have to delete the quadratic formula, Fermat's Last Theorem, etc.

But that it must be taught in Scripture to be necessary and binding Truth is what it held, and while bodily resurrection is taught, that Mary was is not, nor was promised before the first resurrection. It is possible, but so is a talking donkey saying it never happened.

As are stories of tradition that are rejected by Rome, while this one even lacks early testimony from tradition .

What Peter points us to in contrast to cunningly devised fables is the prophesied gospel of Christ, and the "more sure word of prophecy"- those of the Scriptures - upon which the gospel rests. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21)

Which Rome cannot claim for her infallible decrees.

One is saved by persevering to the end..Or, rather, one is saved by Baptism...Or, rather, one is saved by... the Bible is too rich and organically connected to boil down to a few verses of "Bible Bingo" or alleged "proof texts". When all the requirements and possibilities for salvation are compiled, it looks an awful lot like the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Wrong, as "Bible Bingo" or alleged "proof texts" is what abounds in RC attempts to support her traditions of men from Scripture, as in reality that weight of Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for RC assurance of Truth, nor are the faithful to objectively search the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, and are even told one cannot know what Scripture consists of without an infallible magisterium, and faith in it, but their one duty is to follow the pastors.

Ever see what she and they must do in order to support the novel but fundamental premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility? The Immaculate Conception? Prayer to angels and departed saints? A separate class of sacerdotal believers distinctively titled "priests" (“hiereus”)? Etc. Bible bingo indeed. Want to try?

In your example, there is no conflict if engaging in examining Scripture as a whole, in which being saved by grace means God drawing and convicting souls, opening hearts, and granting repentant faith, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8) by which the heart is purified, even before baptism, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-10) as with the heart man believes unto righteousness, but that saving faith is that which is confessed (given opportunity), first in baptism, and then in following Christ, (Rm. 10:9,10; Acts 10:47,48) versus having an evil heart of unbelief, drawing back into perdition. (Heb. 3:12; 10:38)

And no, there isn't a verse on that, but there doesn't need to be. A reading of the text tells us what we need to know, especially when you keep it in context.

Ah, but that would be a violation of "sola Scriptura!" If your opinion isn't in Scripture, then your own standards insist that I not believe you... right? There DOES need to be a clear passage of Scripture which teaches your opinion,... You can talk about "context" until you're blue in the face... but unless the context teaches exactly what you claim it teaches, you're done.

It is unclear what RLH was referring to, but it seems to be that of whether something is allegorical or not, and it is not a violation of SS to understand the literary genre of a passage in the light of its context. Again, SS does not claim to formally contain all things, such as reason (which it materially provides), and as Westminster states, "we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."

Nor that all things are clear, or equally so, but, "what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture...." (, Cp. VI: )

Thus once again you are (likely ignorantly) relying upon a strawman of SS.

The very same Fathers of the Church, whom RnMomOf7 (the OP) thinks are authoritative enough to cite as supports for "sola Scriptura"

Which is also a fallacious argument, as providing testimony from such extra-Biblical sources, does not mean concurrence with all they hold, even for Rome, as they do not provide unanimous consent for all RC doctrine, but they provide testimony from those whom RCs esteem, and often misinterpret.

I *have* heard John 21:25 used (and rightly so) to rebuke the silly idea that "if it isn't in the Bible, no believer is bound to believe it"!

Which is another fallacious argument, as SS does not claim that Scripture contains all that can be known, which Scripture itself evidences, and that fact that it doesn't is not contrary to Scripture containing all that is necessary, as per the aforementioned understanding of sufficiency and teaching. If any public revelation regarding faith is not in the Bible, then the church is not bound to believe it.

the idea of "Bible alone" literally came out of *nowhere*, for no logical reason

"No logical reason"??? If even in its incomplete form, then if the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced ;

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus provides for a canon of Scripture; Then if any source is to be considered the sufficient standard for Truth then it should be Scripture. Yet which does not exclude the leading of the Spirit [esp. during the offering!], and what a believer believers the Lord would have him say or do toward others, which Scripture provides for including that which is thru spiritual gifts, but which is subject to Scripture as the sole supreme standard. Which is unlike autocratic Rome which is her own authority (as she cannot be wrong in any conflict with Scripture, and church law is supreme).

Do you have another objective body of Truth which is wholly inspired of God?

More questions: Did the Lord quote tradition as being the word of God in refuting the devil or that which was written? (Mt. 4) Did the Lord say to "search the traditions" or "search the Scripture" for testimony concerning Him? (Jn. 5:39) Did the Lord substantiate His mission by tradition or the Scriptures to the disciples? Did He opening up their understanding to the Scriptures or to traditions? (Lk. 24:27,44,45) . Did Paul and Apollos reason out of tradition in proving that Jesus was the Christ or out of Scripture? (Acts 17:2; 18:28; 28:23) And while oral preaching was authoritative, what was its claims subject to? Did the Bereans look to see if what the apostles preached was in tradition or Scripture? (Acts 17:11) Did Paul teach that it was by tradition or by the scriptures of the prophets that the gospel was made known to all nations for the obedience of faith? (Romans 16:26)

neither the LDS nor the Catholic Church use the false idea of "sola Scriptura"...

Indeed they do not operate under SS, and thus they both operate under the same alternative, that of sola ecclesia, in which the church alone is the supreme authority, so that Scripture and Divine revelation only assuredly consists of and means what they officially declare it does, and under which premise extraBiblical fables are made binding Truths equal with Scripture, and under a pope claiming ensured veracity.

o, we're not free to conjure up just ANYTHING; it can't CONTRADICT the Scriptures, for one thing, and it should have reasonable EXTERNAL evidence,

Wrong: The claim to be subject to Scripture is meaningless as both Rome and the LDS are autocratic judges which disallow their can be any contradiction. Note the perverse logic of Leo XIII, which presumes the very thing that needs to be proved:

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter...Providentissimus Deus, (On the Study of Holy Scripture), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, dated November 18th, 1893.

And under sola ecclesia, tradition, history and Scripture are only what Rome says they are in any dispute. Thus the recourse of no less than Manning:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. . — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

The way you talk here, you sound as if Catholics invented the idea of Mary's Assumption on a pure lark, with no historical or testimonial evidence at all!... We, at least, have Church History to testify to the death of St. Joseph, the end of Blessed Mary's earthly life (it's unknown whether she died or not, before being assumed)

Not quite, but certainly no something that warrants being binding dogma. There can be some "evidence" behind phenomenons (Bigfoot, etc.), while "the notion of Mary's assumption into heaven has left no trace in the literature of the third, much less of the second century. M. Jugie, the foremost authority on this question, concluded in his monumental study: 'The patristic tradition prior to the Council of Nicaea does not furnish us with any witness about the Assumption.'" (Raymond Brown, et al., Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 266) More .

The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy states that,

, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17)

It is quite obvious the NT church did not see the Assumption as an essential doctrine. But Rome can "remember" what is needed when lacking actual warrant for from where it should be found.

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative. What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

....but the lion's share of information comes from the Church Fathers, who spoke of the Assumption as if it were long-established fact.

The famous Protestant historian Philip Schaff writes,

"It [the Assumption of Mary] rests, however, on a purely apocryphal foundation. The entire silence of the apostles and the primitive church teachers respecting the departure of Mary stirred idle curiosity to all sorts of inventions, until a translation like Enoch's and Elijah's was attributed to her. In the time of Origen some were inferring from Luke ii. 35, that she had suffered martyrdom. Epiphanius will not decide whether she died and was buried, or not. Two apocryphal Greek writings de transitu Mariae, of the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, and afterward pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory of Tours († 595), for the first time contain the legend that the soul of the mother of God was transported to the heavenly paradise by Christ and His angels in presence of all the apostles, and on the following morning her body also was translated thither on a cloud and there united with the soul. Subsequently the legend was still further embellished, and, besides the apostles, the angels and patriarchs also, even Adam and Eve, were made witnesses of the wonderful spectacle" (section 83).

Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll explains that Epiphanius, a church father of the fourth century, lived near where Mary had lived, yet he denies that anybody has any apostolic tradition regarding the end of Mary's life:

"In a later passage, he [Epiphanius] says that she [Mary] may have died and been buried, or been killed - as a martyr. 'Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires; for her end no one knows.'...A Palestinian with opportunity for some research, E. does not speak of a bodily resurrection and remains noncommittal on the way Mary's life ended. He nowhere denies the Assumption, or admits the possibility of Assumption without death, for he has found no sign of death or burial. He suggests several different hypotheses and draws no firm conclusion." (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 135)

William Webster finds, The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:

But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact:

In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).

The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:

The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150) .

In 494 to 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree entitled Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis. This decree officially set forth the writings which were considered to be canonical and those which were apocryphal and were to be rejected...In the list of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected Gelasius signifies the following work: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary. At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble....

Prior to the seventh and eighth centuries there is complete patristic silence on the doctrine of the Assumption. But gradually, through the influence of numerous forgeries which were believed to be genuine, coupled with the misguided enthusiasm of popular devotion, the doctrine gained a foothold in the Church. The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities gives the following history of the doctrine:

In the 3rd of 4th century there was composed a book, embodying the Gnostic and Collyridian traditions as to the death of Mary, called De Transitu Virginis Mariae Liber. This book exists still and may be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima (tom. ii. pt. ii. p. 212)....The Liber Transitu Mariae contains already the whole of the story of the Assumption. But down to the end of the 5th century this story was regarded by the Church as a Gnostic or Collyridian fable, and the Liber de Transitu was condemned as heretical by the Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticus et Apocryphis, attributed to pope Gelasius, A.D. 494. How then did it pass across the borders and establish itself within the church, so as to have a festival appointed to commemorate it? In the following manner: In the sixth century a great change passed over the sentiments and the theology of the church in reference to the Theotokos—an unintended but very noticeable result of the Nestorian controversies, which in maintaining the true doctrine of the Incarnation incidentally gave strong impulse to what became the worship of Mary. In consequence of this change of sentiment, during the 6th and 7th centuries (or later):

1)The Liber de Transitu, though classed by Gelasius with the known productions of heretics came to be attributed by one...to Melito, an orthodox bishop of Sardis, in the 2nd century, and by another to St. John the Apostle. 2) A letter suggesting the possibility of the Assumption was written and attributed to St. Jerome (ad Paulam et Eustochium de Assumptione B. Virginis, Op. tom. v. p. 82, Paris, 1706). 3) A treatise to prove it not impossible was composed and attributed to St. Augustine (Op. tom. vi. p. 1142, ed. Migne). 4) Two sermons supporting the belief were written and attributed to St. Athanasius (Op. tom. ii. pp. 393, 416, ed., Ben. Paris, 1698). 5) An insertion was made in Eusebius’s Chronicle that ‘in the year 48 Mary the Virgin was taken up into heaven, as some wrote that they had had it revealed to them.’

Thus the authority of the names of St. John, of Melito, of Athanasius, of Eusebius, of Augustine, of Jerome was obtained for the belief by a series of forgeries readily accepted because in accordance with the sentiment of the day, and the Gnostic legend was attributed to orthodox writers who did not entertain it. But this was not all, for there is the clearest evidence (1) that no one within the church taught it for six centuries, and (2) that those who did first teach it within the church borrowed it directly from the book condemned by pope Gelasius as heretical.

R.P.C. Hanson gives the following summation of the teaching of the Assumption, emphasizing the lack of patristic and Scriptural support for it and affirming that it originated not with the Church but with Gnosticism:

This dogma has no serious connection with the Bible at all, and its defenders scarcely pretend that it has. It cannot honestly be said to have any solid ground in patristic theology either, because it is frist known among Catholic Christians in even its crudest form only at the beginning of the fifth century, and then among Copts in Egypt whose associations with Gnostic heresy are suspiciously strong; indeed it can be shown to be a doctrine which manifestly had its origin among Gnostic heretics. The only argument by which it is defended is that if the Church has at any time believed it and does now believe it, then it must be orthodox, whatever its origins, because the final standard of orthodoxy is what the Church believes. More .

But again: the Bible isn't the only reason to believe something to be true (e.g. the coronation of Charlemegne, Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, etc.), nor does the Bible make any claim to that effect. So why are you insisting on something which the Bible doesn't demand...

Yet again, at least understand what you are arguing against, which again, is not that the Bible contains all knowledge, but that it alone provides all that is necessary for faith and Godliness in its formal and material aspects, explicitly and implicitly.

This is a reasonable definition, which is based upon prima Scripture, that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. The sufficiency aspect is not inclusively formal, though some seem to make it so, but also pertains to its material aspect, which provided for a canon of Scripture, the church, the leading of the Spirit, the light of nature, etc.

The sola of Scripture as the sole standard for Truth as it is the only objective transcendent comprehensive body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God does not exclude the material need for the church and magisterium, etc. which Scripture establishes, but unlike Rome and so many cults, Scripture is superior to it, and thus the NT church began under Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, thanks be to God.

Again: the fact that the Bible doesn't testify to it says nothing, one way or the other. If the Bible is silent, then we either rely on other trustworthy evidence, or we investigate to see if evidence can be found, or we abandon the idea.

What a way to come up with binding doctrine. "Trustworthy evidence" means since Rome says she worthy of Trust, and thus so it whatever she deems as trustworthy, and in the case of the Assumption it means Rome can "remember" what at the least was manifestly not a binding or essential belief in the early church, and make it one 1800 years later! Likewise the LSD.

The FACT is that it is not the weight of evidence that the veracity of RC doctrine rests upon, but the premise of ensured veracity of Rome. Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

There are hints about the Assumption in the Bible (e.g. the woman "having a place prepared for her in the desert"--Revelation 12:6,

Which is not an infallible interpretation, and finds disagreement among ECFs, and Scripturally refers to Israel and the church. Your own NAB commentary on the Vatican web site says

The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from ⇒ Genesis 37:9-10) symbolizes God's people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (⇒ Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (⇒ Rev 12:6, ⇒ 13-17); cf ⇒ Isaiah 50:1; ⇒ 66:7; ⇒ Jeremiah 50:12.; http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P12V.HTM#$54O

And Methodius, Victorinus, and Hippolytus (among others no doubt) say that the woman of Revelation 12 is the church.

"By the woman then clothed with the sun, he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the 'moon under her feet' he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, 'upon her head a crown of twelve stars,' refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded... 'And the dragon,' he says, 'saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.' That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church.... (Hippolytus,Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 61)

"The modern Mariologists like to turn to [Revelation 12], seeing in it an allegory of the Virgin Mary. But whatever can be thought of their interpretation, it is a fact that none of the early interpreters before the end of the fourth century see the Virgin Mary in the woman of the Revelation. They all understand her to be the Church and so they continue to make most of their interpretations in the following centuries. Ticonius is the first to suggest the Marian interpretation" [Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955, pp.101-102)].

You can argue for it being Mary, but as this is not official doctrine and the goal of RC apologetics is to bring us to submit to Rome, versus relying on our interpretation for what we believe, then by arguing for your interpretation of such texts as Rv. 12 then you validating evangelical means of determining Truth, which is just what RCs attack when its conclusions opposes her.

the fact that two assumptions had already happened, with Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11-12),

And so we can use the story of talking Philip's supernatural transport (Acts 8:39,40) to support a binding doctrine that Mary did likewise based on some stories that developed, and the infallible decree of a pope. Likewise fables of Mormonism.

No sane person worships Mary..

Rather, no sane person imagines it is impossible to honor Mary to excess, and not cross the invisible ambiguous line into worship, when in Scripture one of the exclusive aspects of worship was that of such things as bowing down before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world as having uniquely Divine powers, such as the ability to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayer addressed to them. Which cannot be validly extrapolated from earthly relations.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

The Holy Spirit records over 200 prayers by believers in the Bible, all of which are addressed to God. Meanwhile, the only persons shown making offerings and supplication to created beings in the heavenly realm are pagans, to the Queen of Heaven, which is the only Queen of Heaven mentioned in Scripture. (Jer. 44) In addition to such things as holding that Mary has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven," and that "through her alone does He dispense His favours and His gifts," and "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own," and “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus," and that "Jesus and Mary suffered for our sins." Sources and more.

.and the Catholic Church condemns any such "worship"

Rather, it encourages what the Bible shows as worship being given to created beings.

when you quote Westminster and previous posts, I see a great deal of good and noble sentiment ...but no raw data to prove that it is (or claims to be able) to be used ALONE, much less that it’s sufficient for SALVATION when used alone.

Are you still engaging in your SS straw man, so that SS negates the warrant for the teaching office of the church, which Westminster affirms? And do you believe that since the Reformers held that Scripture is the one sufficient standard for faith then they had no use for the writings of the ancients? Or is it your definition of sufficiency the problem? More on this further on.

Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings” (From Alister McGrath's [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men...not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same;... - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

However, do you really believe that one cannot read a text such as Peter's sermon in Acts 10:36-43 and become born again? What part of "able to make thee wise concerning salvation" (which has a fuller sense here) means it cannot?

You also did not answer my questions in the post you are responding to, which is necessary for your alternative for SS.

C: “I agree. But why do you believe in SOLA Scriptura?” NC: “Because Scripture says that Scripture is vitally important, useful, God-breathed, inerrant, etc.”

So what other objective transcendent comprehensive body of Truth is said to be wholly inspired of God, and instrumentally used to make one completely equipped for every good work? And as the assured word of God, is alive and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

And was the source which oral preaching of the word of God was subject to?

"Infallible" decrees? The CCC? The magisterium? The writings of tradition? Note that the sufficiency of Scripture provides for the church and preaching.

“You still haven’t said why you need to use it ALONE, to the extent that you condemn anyone else’s practice of using other things such as Sacred Tradition (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.)

So you think SS precludes obedience to oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, versus that of preaching that which is not in Scripture but which is said to be binding Truth even 1800 years after a claimed event which lacks early "trustworthy" evidence, but the veracity of which is based upon the premise of perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility?

Since even Westminster affirms such things as the light of nature and the magisterial office, and Reformers made use of writings of the ancients language in understanding Scripture, and evangelicals have produced extensive commentaries on Scripture, then such as language as the Scriptures needing no other supplement must refer to another source of wholly inspired Divine revelation, not merely sources that contain truth.

Even if a so-called infallible decree is true, it is not wholly inspired Divine revelation, while i do not see SS as necessarily denying that which is supplied via spiritual gifts such as prophesying, but which does not add to the standard of Scripture, and the veracity of which is subject to Scripture as alone being the standard for faith, and which provides for these gifts (though much much abused).

In contrast, what Rome decrees is not subject to Scripture, as having declared herself infallible, Scripture can only authoritatively consist of and mean what she says it does, and which cannot contradict her. For according to herself, the church cannot err when it teaches a doctrine of faith or morals that all must believe or practice, while not even any non-infallible teachings can err to the extent that they would lead the faithful away from salvation. Which premise of ensured magisterial veracity is not how God preserved Truth and faith in Scripture, as instead He often raised up men from without the magisterium to do so.

Thus what I see as the problem is idea of the sola of Scripture, and the unScriptural nature of your effective alternative, that of sola ecclesia.

and the teaching of the Church (Matthew 18:17, 1 Timothy 3:15, etc.), even though Scripture attests to them and endorses them (and even requires them)!”

So you still believe the SS straw man that it excludes the magisterial office, or that of a perpetually ensured infallible magisterium that thus can make extra Scriptural traditions of men binding doctrine?

More questions: Did the church begin under the premise of the latter, or by Scriptural substantiation? And how is the tradition of Rome the same as what Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc? How do you know that? Does Rome speak under the full inspiration of the Spirit in providing new revelation that is equal to Scripture in authority?

NC: “Because all such tradition is the same as the content found in the Bible! And because the Church is the entire body of believers, not some hierarchy in Rome!” C: “Care to prove those two assertions? I see those assertions nowhere in Scripture, and they’re awfully convenient ones for your argument.”

Care to prove that what is referred to as oral traditions were not subsequently written, or were not that of Scriptural Truths contained in what was written?

Can you even tell me what oral tradition precisely is and consists of, and of its beginning and end, and where Rome teaches it under the full inspiration of the Spirit, thus being equal with Scripture?

And that the one true Church is not the body of Christ, the household of faith, which only consists of believers, versus one visible church in which believers express their faith but which is an admixture of sheep and goats?

and no one gives any clear, undeniable Scripture which says unequivocally that we are saved by faith ALONE.

Which is either like an atheist claiming he cannot see evidence of God, or a thief who cannot find a police station, or it is the typical strawman of sola ecclesia. For while Abraham had done good works before Gn. 15:6, yet when faced with something he simply could not do, Scripture plainly states that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (Romans 4:3)

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5)

Nor does Rm. 4 simply exclude works of the Law, as Eph. 2:8,9 and Titus 3:5 do not refer to simply these, but the use of the Law is because "if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)

In contrast, under Roman soteriology, God justifieth the Godly, as one is "formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness,” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace) normally initially "infused" via regeneration effected by the act itself of sprinkling of water (ex opere operato), thus at that point the newly baptized is fit to enter Heaven. Thus Abraham must have become born again in Gn. 15:6.

However, due to failure to maintain this and as justification is based one one's own holiness, then under the Roman system of salvation, the RC (the EOs reject the purgatory of Rome) typically must endure postmortem "purifying torments" for an indeterminate time in purgatory until they atone for sins and once again become good enough to enter Heaven.

James also invokes Gn. 15:6 in teaching that "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," (James 2:24) which would be a contradiction of both Moses and Paul is speaking of being justified in the same sense. But while Paul is dealing with what actually appropriates justification, the merit of works or faith being counted as righteousness (yet not as merely being a white washed sinner, but one whose heart is purified by faith), James is dealing with the manner of faith that justifies, and which must be the kind of faith which effect obedience.

And which (to the chagrin of Caths) reformers taught that faith is:

a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature. I need not first command it and say: Look here, tree, bear apples. For if the tree is there and is good, the fruit will follow unbidden. If faith is present works must follow.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]

“We must therefore most certainly maintain that where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 246, footnote 99] More.

Also, rather than the easy believism Rome associates with sola fide, but which is most manifest among RCs, in Puritan Protestantism there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy as described in an account (http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html) of Puritans during the early American period that notes,

“They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’”

Thanks for the occasion to better clarify what "alone" should refer to in both SS and SE.