Sacred Scripture Alone Disproves the Bible Alone theory!

Catholic Apologetics ^ | Lucas Feliers

[ebb tide]

Sacred Scripture Alone Disproves the Bible Alone theory!

Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"

 

From Genesis to the book of the Apocalypse, Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

 

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

 

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

 

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

 

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

 

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

 

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

 

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

 

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

 

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

 

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

 

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

 

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

 

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?

 

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

 

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).

 

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

 

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

 

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

 

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")

 

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

 

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

 

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

 

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.

 

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

 

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

 

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

 

All Scripture is Inspired"- 2 Tim. 3:16-17

 

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

 

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

 

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

 

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

 

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

 

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

 

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

 

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.

 

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

 

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." Nowhere does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

 

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.

 

Other Passages used to Support "Sola Scriptura"

 

John 5:39 - some non-Catholics use this verse to prove sola Scriptura. But when Jesus said "search the Scriptures," He was rebuking the Jews who did not believe that He was the Messiah. Jesus tells them to search the Scriptures to verify the Messianic prophecies and His oral teaching, and does not say "search the Scriptures alone." Moreover, since the New Testament was not yet written, the passage is not relevant to the Protestant claim of sola Scriptura.

 

John 10:35 - some Protestants also use this verse "Scripture cannot be broken" to somehow prove sola Scriptura. But this statement refers to the Old Testament Scriptures and has nothing to do with the exclusivity of Scripture and the New Testament.

 

John 20:31 - Protestants also use this verse to prove sola Scriptura. Indeed, Scripture assists in learning to believe in Jesus, but this passage does not say Scripture is exclusive, or even necessary, to be saved by Jesus.

 

Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse "they searched the Scriptures." This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what Protestants are attempting to prove when quoting this passage). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola Scriptura.

 

Acts 17:11-12 - Also, the Bereans, being more "noble" or "fair minded," meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).

 

1 Cor. 4:6 - this is one of the most confusing passages in Scripture. Many scholars believe the phrase "don't go above the line" was inserted by a translator as an instruction to someone in the translation process. Others say Paul is quoting a proverb regarding kids learning to write by tracing letters. By saying don't go above line, Paul is probably instructing them not to be arrogant. But even if the phrase is taken literally, to what was Paul referring? The Talmud? The Mosaic law? The Old Testament Scriptures? This proves too much for the Protestant because there was no New Testament canon at the time Paul wrote this, and the text says nothing about the Bible being the sole rule and guide of faith.

 

Apoc. 1:11,19 - Non-Catholics sometimes refer to Jesus' commands to John to write as support for the theory that the Bible is the only source of Christian faith. Yes, Jesus commands John to write because John was in exile in Patmos and could not preach the Word (which was Jesus' usual command). Further, such a commandment would be limited to the book that John wrote, the Book of Revelation, and would have nothing to do with the other Scriptures.

 

Apoc. 22:18-19 - some Protestants argue against Catholic tradition by citing this verse, "don't add to the prophecies in this book." But this commandment only refers to the book of Apocalyse, not the entire Bible which came 300 years later.

 

Deut 4:2; 12:32 - moreover, God commands the same thing here but this did not preclude Christians from accepting the Old Testament books after Deuteronomy or the New Testament.

 

 

Tradition / Church Fathers

 

Scripture Must be Interpreted in Light of Church Tradition

 

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, "as many as walk according to the rule," which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you come?" Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).

 

"Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles." Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230).

"The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.'" Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 6 (A.D. 256).

 

"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures....Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).

 

"[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand." Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355).

 

"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

 

"This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiasitcal sense." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, 1:44 (A.D. 362).

 

"It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fullness of the two Testaments." Ephraem, Against Heresies (ante A.D. 373).

 

"Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicea is in use." Basil, To the Church of Antioch, Epistle 140:2 (A.D. 373).

 

"For they [heretics] do not teach as the church does; their message does no accord with the truth." Epiphanius, Panarion, 47 (A.D. 377).

 

"[S]eeing, I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion... And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them." Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 4:6 (c. A.D. 384).

 

"Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations of heretics hold not the truth: the church alone, with pious affection, is in possession of the truth." Ambrose, Commentary of Psalm 118,19 (A.D. 388).

 

"They teach what they themselves have learnt from their predecessors. They have received those rites which they explain from the Church's tradition. They preach only 'the dogmas of the Church'" John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction (A.D. 389).

 

"But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things." Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).

" 'So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.' Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther." John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404).

 

"My resolution is, to read the ancients, to try everything, to hold fast what is good, and not to recede from the faith of the Catholic Church." Jerome, To Minervius & Alexander, Epistle 119 (A.D. 406).

"But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church." Augustine, On the Trinity, 4,6:10 (A.D. 416).

 

"But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent." Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory of the Antinquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 70 (A.D. 434).

 

"[H]old fast the faith in simplicity of mind; establishing the tradition of the church as a foundation, in the inmost recesses of thy heart, hold the doctrines which are well-pleasing unto God." Cyril of Alexandria, Festal Letters, Homily 8 (A.D. 442).

 

Scripture is not Subject to Private Interpretation

 

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199).

 

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men - a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind…” Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200).

“To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith." Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200).

 

"For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 7:16 (post A.D. 202).

 

"When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying: 'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [the word of truth] ' (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God." Origen, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 46, PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254).

 

"A most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines: also there is need of a wakeful soul, since there are many that make spoil through philosophy and vain deceit. The Greeks on the one hand draw men away by their smooth tongue, for honey droppeth from a harlot's lips: whereas they of the Circumcision deceive those who come to them by means of the Divine Scriptures, which they miserably misinterpret though studying them from childhood to all age, and growing old in ignorance. But the children of heretics, by their good words and smooth tongue, deceive the hearts of the innocent, disguising with the name of Christ as it were with honey the poisoned arrows of their impious doctrines: concerning all of whom together the Lord saith, Take heed lest any man mislead you. This is the reason for the teaching of the Creed and for expositions upon it." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:2 (A.D. 350).

 

"And, O wretched heretic! You turn the weapons granted to the Church against the Synagogue, against belief in the Church's preaching, and distort against the common salvation of all the sure meaning of a saving doctrine." Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 12:36 (inter A.D. 356-359).

 

"But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I:37 (A.D. 362).

 

"To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one's own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency." Basil, EpistleTo the Canonicae, 52:1 (A.D. 370).

 

"While (the sects) mutually refute and condemn each other, it has happened to truth as to Gideon; that is, while they fight against each other, and fall under wounds mutually inflicted, they crown her. All the heretics acknowledge that there is a true Scripture. Had they all falsely believed that none existed, someone might reply that such Scripture was unknown to them. But now that have themselves taken away the force of such plea, from the fact that they have mutilated the very Scriptures. For they have corrupted the sacred copies; and words which ought to have but one interpretation, they have wrested to strange significations. Whilst, when one of them attempts this, and cuts off a member of his own body, the rest demand and claim back the severed limb...It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fulness (or, the whole) of the two Testaments." Ephraem, Adv. Haeres (ante A.D. 373).

 

"Who knows not that what separates the Church from heresy is this term, 'product of creation, ' applied to the Son? Accordingly, the doctrinal difference being universally acknowledged, what would be the reasonable course for a man to take who endeavors to show that his opinions are more true than ours?" Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 4:6 (inter A.D. 380-384).

 

"For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and with trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith with which we are imbued…" Augustine, On the Gospel of John, Homily XVIII:1 (A.D. 416).

 

"If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts' (Mt 5:19)" Maximinus (Arch-Arian Heretic), Debate with Maximinus, 1 (c. A.D. 428).

 

"Therefore, as I said above, if you had been a follower and assertor of Sabellianism or Arianism or any heresy you please, you might shelter yourself under the example of your parents, the teaching of your instructors, the company of those about you, the faith of your creed. I ask, O you heretic, nothing unfair, and nothing hard. As you have been brought up in the Catholic faith, do that which you would do for a wrong belief. Hold fast to the teaching of your parents. Hold fast the faith of the Church: hold fast the truth of the Creed: hold fast the salvation of baptism." John Cassian, Incarnation of the Lord, 6:5 (c. A.D. 429).

 

"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church." Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory of the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 2:4 (A.D. 434).

 

"But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view, if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practiced negligently should thenceforward be practiced with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils, this, and nothing else, has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name." Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory of the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 23:59 (A.D. 434).

 

"[A]ll heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and ...make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers..." Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory of the Anitquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 24:63 (A.D. 434).

 

"His (Nestorius) first attempt at innovation was, that the holy Virgin, who bore the Word of God, who took flesh of her, ought not to be confessed to be the mother of God, but only the mother of Christ; though of old, yea from the first, the preachers of the orthodox faith taught, agreeably to the apostolic tradition, that the mother of God. And now let me produce his blasphemous artifice and observation unknown to any one before him." Theodoret of Cyrus, Compendium of Heretics' Fables, 12 (c.A.D. 453).

 

 

 The Catholic Church Determined the Canon of Scripture; What the Church Fathers teach:

 

"For the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order--to the Corinthians afirst...there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world...Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing...to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all." The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

 

"The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage--I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew--whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (A.D. 212).

 

"In his [Origen] first book on Matthew's Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.' And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John." Origen, Commentary on Matthew, fragment in Eusebius Church History, 6:25,3 (A.D. 244).

 

"Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).

 

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle." Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).

 

"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.'. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted." Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

 

"I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things [the canon], I shall adopt, to comment my undertaking, the pattern of Luke...to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon..." Athanasius, Festal Letters, 39 (A.D. 397).

 

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John." Council of Carthage III, Canon 47 (A.D. 397).

 

"The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you." Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5 (c. A.D. 400).

 

"If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church has received, are to be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema." Council of Toledo, Canon 12 (A.D. 400).

 

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally: of Moses five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomenon two books. Likewise of the New Testament: of the Gospels four books, of Paul the Apostle fourteen epistles, of John three, epistles of Peter two, an epistle of Jude, an epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John." Pope Innocent (regn. A.D. 401-417), Epistle to Exsuperius Bishop of Toulose, 6:7,13 (A.D. 405).

 

"Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis...The Revelation of John...for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in the church." Council of Carthage, African Code, Canon 24 (A.D. 419).

 

"The book of the Apocalypse which John the wise wrote, and which has been honoured by the approval of the Fathers." Cyril of Alexandria, Worship and Adoration in Spirit and in Truth, 5 (A.D. 425).

"Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:--Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles --these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.

 

The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:--Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:--Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul--one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John." Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 2:8,12 (A.D. 426).

[ebb tide]

Who recorded the Book of Genesis?

[metmom]

It really is too bad that you think depending solely on God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture is *dumb*.

j guess depending on God only is dumb to you too, since you have such a low opinion of His word, and you seem to feel you need to add works to attain salvation.

I get it. Everything you post tells the world that you don’t think God can be trusted. What a shame.

[daniel1212]

You asked for it, agent provocateur for a church which according to you is led by a man Francis (Bergoglio) who is not a Catholic, but one who preaches and authors heresy, being a material and formal heretic,
who is part of a schism, in a Church that has already shut itself up since VCII and no longer proclaims Christ the Sovereign King to all nations nor does it preach "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus."
Thus you, who will never give VCII a pass (I do understand why), and posted that the Ecumenical Mass of Bergoglio is straight out of Hell defends a Catholic Church as being the Bride of Christ but it is not the papacy of Bergoglio or apparently any living pope.

The RC argument against "Bible only," which actually misrepresents Sola Scriptura, and for what is essentially "sola Roma," is, in brief, basically that since the early church had no Bible (as if they had no Scripture),

and thus the Lord and His Apostles preached orally (leaving out their reliance upon Scripture in so doing),

and that there is in doctrines that can be known that what the Lord taught while on earth, citing John 20:30; 21:25,

and that Catholicism was essential in establishing a sure canon and preserving Scripture,

and Scripture needs explanation lest there be division, and which division invalidates the "Bible only" strawman,

means that the oral tradition of Rome is likewise of God and that she is to be submitted to.

Which argument is refuted by the facts that

an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture,"

which shows that both men and writings of God could be recognized without an infallible magisterium, the establishment of which is essentially due to their surpassing heavenly qualities and attestation.

And which writings provided the prophetic, doctrinal epistemological foundation for the NT church, for God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation of His Word.

And that Scripture does not say that there is oral tradition of additional doctrine, but that Christ did command writing of His word via His Spirit. (John 16:12-15; 2 Tim. 3:16; Revelation 1:11)

And while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils cannot claim to do so. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.

The premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) as per Rome (and basically in cults) is nowhere exampled, taught or promised. And in fact, God's means of preservation of faith required the raising of men (prophets and apostles) which reproved valid magisterial power.

And that being the historical magisterial judges on what is of God, and instrumental preservers of writings of God, simply cannot, does not, and did not translate into required submission to such.

For as said, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) as the historical magisterial head over Israel, the historical instruments discerners and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2, 3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33, 34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead, truth seeking souls followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved upon Scripture being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27, 44; Jn. 5:36, 39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Catholic priests are not NT pastors, nor are distinctive Catholic teachings manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

Having a claimed sure supreme interpreter of Scripture as per Rome does not mean unity, even among those who place a priority among doctrine, for the interpreter itself is subject to interpretation, and thus the fractured condition of Catholicism.

And thus to be a RC also means to be part of an mixture of at least a near majority of liberal and conservative Catholics (who actually are most likely to be criticized by hierarchy) , since all of which are indeed considered to be members by Rome, which reveals her interpretation of her own doctrines by what she does. (cf. Ja. 2:18) Which, with interpretations of the interpreter, has resulted in more division, mainly of TradCaths vs., the Vatican, and divisions among the former (the OP himself apparently represents a church with no living pope) . Yet as with conservative Bible Christians, their divisions are mostly due to taking doctrine very seriously, and thus such also has the strongest basic unity in faith and morals.

Therefore, the "living magisterium" to which RCs are sppsd to submit to, has actually resulted in more disunity, vs. being the vaunted solution to it.

In addition, after over 1,000 years, Rome and the EOs have yet to resolve their substantial disagreements.

In addition, SS simply does not mean the "Bible alone," as if "the due use of ordinary means" (Westminster Confession) excludes the church and teachers.

Meanwhile, despite divisions, those in what is called Protestantism who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly God-inspired sure and supreme authority have long testified to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.

And the really deleterious division under the vast umbrella called Protestantism is because only about half or less of denominations actually believe in the Bible Scripture as the accurate and wholly God-inspired sure and supreme authority.

Yet the ideal is one unified organic church, if in variety and not clones, and the NT church manifested its unity in heart and basic beliefs under manifest men of God, in Scriptural probity, purity, power, passion and perseverance, (2 Co. 6:4-10) due to full Scriptural surrender and consecration in heart to the Lord, which is overall lacking today. Thus in summation:

Scripture began before the church, and which provided the the prophetic, doctrinal epistemological foundation for it, as well evidenced by the multitudinous quotes and direct references to it in NT teaching.

Apart from this foundation, the Lord and His apostles would not have any substantiation for their oral and written teaching, apart from miracles and their own holiness, which by themselves do not establish authenticity of message.

Men such as the apostles could speak and write as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils cannot claim to do. Thus the latter can only self-proclaim that she cannot teach salvific error, or any error in certain formats.

Yet the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) as per Rome (and basically in cults) is nowhere exampled, taught or promised. And in fact, God's means of preservation of faith required the raising of men (prophets and apostles) which reproved valid magisterial power. As did the Lord Jesus and His disciples.

Being the historical magisterial judges on what is of God, and instrumental preservers of writings of God, simply cannot, does not, and did not translate into required submission to such. For as said, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, under men who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

Having a claimed sure supreme interpreter of Scripture as per Rome does not mean unity, even among those who place a priority among doctrine, for the interpreter itself is subject to interpretation, and thus the fractured condition of Catholicism.

The strongest basic unity is among those to take doctrine most seriously, which groups also typically see the most division - unless repressed - but the means to unity is full Scriptural surrender and consecration in heart to the Lord, as manifested by the NT church, which was definitely not Catholic, and with a strong basic unity which increasingly saw diversity as it spread. (Rv. 2,3)

And with the closest to this today being among a remnant of conservative evangelical Bible Christians, as part of those which have long testified to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.

Among which the written word is the assured infallible word of God, and the sole sure supreme standard for Truth, but not as alone in enabling understanding of its teachings, and by which all Truth claims are tested.

[daniel1212]

You asked for it, agent provocateur: Arguments in "Bible Only is dumb" are dumb (and ignorant):Ignorant argument #ONE Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so? Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write;

Yes. And since it is the Spirit of Christ that inspired the Scriptures, and the Spirit only speaks what the Lord Jesus wills, then indeed the Lord wrote all of the New Testament and commanded Apostles to do so

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (John 16:12-15)

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (Revelation 1:10-11)

Ignorant COMMENT #1: If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation, Our Lord would have made that statement and also provided the necessary means for his followers.

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27)

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)

Ignorant argument # TWO How many of the Apostles or others actually wrote what is now in the New Testament? A Few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings, as they themselves expressly stated; i.e., Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, Matthew, also Sts. Mark and Luke. None of the others wrote anything, so far as is recorded

How many writings of the Apostles or others are necessary to establish consensus on doctrine and in judgments? Seeing as,

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (2 Corinthians 13:1)

He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: (Hebrews 10:28)

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; (Luke 1:1-2)

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. (Matthew 18:16)

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. (Galatians 2:9)

Ignorant COMMENT #2: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.

Rather, apostles would have been derelict in their duty if they did not rely upon the written word in preaching, which provided the epistemological prophetic and doctrinal foundation for the NT, and the Lord validated His ministry by (along with miracles) and opened the minds of the disciple to.

Meaning the apostles would have been derelict in their duty by not doing as the leaders Peter and Paul did, affirming the written word as being the more sure word of prophecy, (2 Peter 1:19) and which "reasoned out of the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2) as the Spirit of Christ affirmed those who tested their preaching by the Scriptures. (Acts 17:11) And contrary to sola ecclesia, in which the word of God consists of and means whatever Rome says, according to her interpretation, which is base upon the unscriptural premise that since men such as apostles could preach as wholly God-inspired, then her uninspired popes and councils also are to be believed like they were, if Sola Scriptura meant that that the Bible personally interpreted was to be a infallible Divine rule of Faith, unreprovable by "synods and councils" who are to ministerially "determine controversies of faith" (Westminster Confession XXXI) then the the RC comment/polemic might have some merit. The the magisterial office of church is essential to settle disputes, in subjection of Scripture, with its veracity being relative to its degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and not as superior to it. contrary to the Catholic premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (and basically as in cults).

Ignorant argument # THREE Was it a teaching or a Bible-reading Church that Christ founded? The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written.

Amazing! Scripture must only consist of the New Testament books if this polemic against the primacy of Scripture is to have any validity! Instead, an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)

For the Hebrew Scriptures testify to Jesus being the promised scapegoat and perfect atonement, and the basis for the teachings of Christ and that of His church. And thus as said, Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church.

Which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, with even the veracity of apostolic preaching being subject to examination by Scripture.

For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation of His Word. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15, 18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44, 45; John 5:46, 47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15)

And thus as abundantly evidenced , 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. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.

Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.

And the establishment of an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings by the time of Christ also shows that both men and writings of God could be recognized without an infallible magisterium - contrary to the premise of Catholicism, and indeed The church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2, 3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33, 34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27, 44; Jn. 5:36, 39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Ignorant argument # FOUR Was there any drastic difference between what Our Lord© commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains? Our Lord commanded his Apostles to teach all things whatsoever He had commanded; (Matt. 28-20); His Church must necessarily teach everything; (John 14-26); however, the Protestant Bible itself teaches that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines: John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus...John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did

No, the Protestant Bible itself does NOT teach that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines, and there is NO doctrinal difference between what Our Lord (which applies to only a very few RCs) commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains. For while there is more information (John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus...John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did) than even what the OT contains as well as NT - yet Christ opened the minds of the disciples to understanding Scripture, not oral tradition - and there is more that can be known of "many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." Yet "these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

And as said, while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils can claim to do so. Thus rather than oral tradition being the assured infallible word of God based upon the Catholic presumption that the word of God only consists of and means whatever she says (though the RCC and the EO have conflicts in this), it remains that God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation if His Word, and the written word is the assured infallible word of God.

Ignorant COMMENT: How would it have been possible for second century Christians to practice Our Lord's religion, if private interpretation of an unavailable and only partial account of Christ's teaching were indispensable?

Because contrary to RC ignorance, most of Scripture already was established as being so, and men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils can claim to do so, and contrary to RC distinctive teachings, by those who "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11) could see that they were!

Ignorant argument # FIVE Does the New Testament expressly refer to Christ's "unwritten word"? The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.

Which is simply a repetition of the previous refuted polemic.

Ignorant COMMENT: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.

Since the OT was incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the wholly God-inspired spoken or then written recorded word which we call Scripture, versus the uninspired presumptions of Catholosicism. By which 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, and presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.

Ignorant argument # SIX What became of the unwritten truths which Our Lord and the Apostles taught? The Church has carefully conserved this "word of mouth" teaching by historical records called Tradition. Even the Protestant Bible teaches that many Christian truths were to be handed down by word of mouth. COMMENT: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christ's teaching. Religions founded on "the Bible only" are therefore necessarily incomplete. Ignorant COMMENT: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christ's teaching. Religions founded on "the Bible only" are therefore necessarily incomplete.

What unwritten truths of doctrine? (John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus...John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did. The premise that there is a body of the unwritten wholly God-inspired doctrinal truths which the Lord and His prophets taught is the kind of presumption that is typical of cults. And which premise Orthodox Jews presume in rejecting the NT. Religions NOT founded on "the Bible only" (properly understood) are therefore necessarily incorrect.

Ignorant argument # SEVEN Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written? This first book, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lord's Ascension. St. John's fourth gospel and Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 A. D. Ignorant COMMENT: Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted "Bible-only" theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet been written.

Wrong. All books except Revelation were most likely written within one 70-year generation of the Lord's resurrection and all were penned before the death of the last apostle. And as said, while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils can claim to do so, thus the premise that the preaching of the latter (which did not exist early on) was and is the assured word of God, is fallacious.

. Ignorant argument # EIGHT When was the New Testament placed under one cover? In 397 A. D. by the Council of Carthage, from which it follows that non-Catholics have derived their New Testament from the Catholic Church; no other source was available. Ignorant COMMENT: Up to 397 A. D., some of the Christians had access to part of the New Testament; into this situation, how would the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory have fitted?

And just how much did Adam and Eve need to know for obedience to God? Likewise those prior to Moses, and those prior to other prophets, and the Lord Jesus? God always provided enough revelation for salvation and obedience to God. But He also can provide more grace. And which includes preachers of the Scriptures.

Only if Sola Scriptura actually taught that one must have his own copy of Scripture and be able to read it in order to be save and grown in grace would this polemic have some validity, versus SS teaching what Scripture is and provides (being the sole sure supreme sufficient body of Truth, in its formal and broader senses) , whereby what one "may" (see WC #6 here: not necessarily will or equally can without helps) be able to apprehend what is taught therein.

Thus SS preachers can preach salvation and disciple others who do not even know how to read, and even enjoin "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15) under the premise that, as with the apostles, what was taught is Scriptural. In contrast, the premise of Rome for its veracity is her own claim to being so, as if, like men such as the apostles who could speak as wholly inspired of God, yet neither popes and councils can claim to do so.

Ignorant NINE Why so much delay in compiling the New Testament? Prior to 397 A. D., the various books of the New Testament were not under one cover, but were in the custody of different groups or congregations....COMMENT: This again shows how utterly impossible was the "Bible-only" theory, at least up to 400 A. D.

Same argument, same refutation.

Ignorant argument # TEN What other problem confronted those who wished to determine the contents of the New Testament? Before the inspired books were recognized as such, many other books had been written and by many were thought to be inspired; hence the Catholic Church made a thorough examination of the whole question; biblical scholars spent years in the Holy Land studying the original languages of New Testament writings. Ignorant COMMENT: According to the present-day "Bible-only" theory, in the above circumstances, it would also have been necessary for early Christians to read all the doubtful books and, by interior illumination, judge which were and which were not divinely inspired.

There was also a fluid canon to some degree among the Jews in the time of Christ, but it is best indicated that the Palestinian canon - which even Catholic sources affirm was the same as the Prot. OT canon - (and preceded an expanded LXX) was what Christ referred to as "all the Scriptures." (LK. 24:27) Likewise "all the Scriptures" existed to the end of the 1st century which, as with the Hebrew Scriptures, discerning souls perceived as being of God, as they also did in perceiving men of God as being so.

Thus the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2, 3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33, 34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27, 44; Jn. 5:36, 39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Which is in contrast to the Cath. premise, in which recognition of which writings are of God requires faith in the magisterial judges and stewards of such.

“the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium)

“People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high.” ( Cardinal Avery Dulles)

Thus in apologetics toward the unconverted,in RC theology it is taught that Scripture is to be appealed to as merely reliable historical source, which hopefully helps the potential convert to place faith in Rome, and thereby know what is of God.

it should be premised that when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility)

Thus it is is presumed that should be able to discern the RCC as being of God, but not wholly God-inspired Scripture. And which , establishment, as with men of God, was essentially due to the uniquely Divine qualities and attestation, and the consensus of the people who were regenerated by faith in its gospel, with freedom to read it, contrary to much of Rome's history.

Ignorant argument # ELEVEN Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to the New Testament? Shortly before 400 A. D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not.

Pure propaganda, in ignorance or denial of history. In reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon — after the death of Luther. Thus Luther was no maverick in this issue, which was not part of his excommunication by Rome, but had substantial RC support for his non-binding personal opinion (as he expressed it was) on the canon, being just one of many Catholic scholars to express doubt or disagreement before Trent. See Luther and the Canon of Scripture for more.

In addition, what I said in response to argument # EIGHT applies here also.

Ignorant COMMENT: In view of these historical facts, it is difficult to see how non-Catholics can deny that it was from the (Roman) Catholic Church that they received the New Testament.

Which statement actually condemns Rome since it contradicts the very gospel and revelation it cannot claim to write, but by arguing that the judge of which writings were of God and the steward of them means that she is to be submitted to in all her other judgments (which is the argument being the assertion here, then it effectively invalidates the NT church! "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:2)

For as said, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2, 3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33, 34; Jer. 7:23)

Thus, based upon the Catholic premise, then 1st c. souls should have submitted to the judgment of those who sat in the seat of Moses as regarding who was of God, rather than following itinerant prophets and teachers and their leader whom the historical magisterium rejected! Thus the NT church has effectively been invalidated the church under this presumptuous premise.

Ignorant argument # TWELVE Why is it impossible for modern non-Catholics to check over the work done by the Church previous to 400. A. D.? The original writings were on frail material called papyrus, which had but temporary enduring qualities. While the books judged to be inspired by the Catholic Church were carefully copied by her monks, those rejected at that time were allowed to disintegrate, for lack of further interest in them. . COMMENT. What then is left for non-Catholics, except to trust the Catholic Church to have acted under divine inspiration; if at that time, why not now?

Same argument, same invalid reasoning, while even the final settling of the canon by decree of Trent can only imagine infallibility (which is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults) and cannot claim divine inspiration even in Catholic thelogy.

God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. (Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

snip

The Bible teaches that the rulers of Christ's Church have authority which must be obeyed in matters of religion.

As like was enjoined toward the scribes and Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) and is toward civil rulers, (Rm. 13:1-7) which thus requires dissent from valid authorities (which Rome is not to those without), and the poster of this prevaricating polemic is himself in schismatic dissent from the living magisterium of the church calling itself the Catholic church, and acting contrary to the broad requirements of submission many past popes. We who

I have spent enough time and energy on this fallacious failing polemic, in which none of the RC arguments have or can stand, and as typical or the same as iterations which have been refuted before, by the grace of God. As here:

10-Point+ Biblical Refutation of RC Attempted Refutation of Sola Scriptura

14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia

Step-by-Step Refutation of Dave Armstrong vs. Sola Scriptura

[daniel1212]

You asked for it, agent provocateur:

Here are questions for those who argue for the alternative of sola scriptura, which is that of sola ecclesia: 1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving the word of God: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme substantive authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or  Scripture?
3. Which came first: an authoritative body of the written word of God, or the NT church, and what provided the transcendent prophetic, doctrinal and moral foundation for the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings by the first century require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure, substantive source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating Truth claims to a nation which was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture ever subject to testing by the oral words of men, or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the transcendent, supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source for what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scriptura must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says, and means that all believers will correctly understand what is necessary, and that it replaces the magisterial office (and ideally a centralized one)  as the  formal  judicial earthly authority on matters of dispute (though it appeals to Scripture as the only infallible and supreme source of Truth)?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible explicitly and formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine public revelation, and which formally and materially (combined) provides what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace, as the sole sure, supreme, standard of express Divine public revelation?
11. What infallible oral magisterial source has spoken to man as the wholly God-inspired public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?

 *SS actually includes the materially sense as regards sufficiency, but not as in Catholicism, (esp. RC) in which "The Church" asserts that written and oral tradition teach ensured perpetual magisterial veracity in formal teaching on faith and morals uniquely for their church, thus effectively validating its own claim, and thus if they claim the Assumption is a fact, then all are to believe it. But SS does teach material sufficiency in the sense that "what is "necessary for God's 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 [as public express revelation], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."

To which it adds that souls by "a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (necessary things). And that,

.".we acknowledge...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.” http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html 

[daniel1212]

You asked for it, agent provocateur:

Some think that sola scriptura (SS) must mean that Scripture formally and even explicitly provides all that is necessary for salvation and growth in grace,  thus   dispensing with the teaching office of the church, and helps of commentaries and any authority of   synods, and even that one must be able to  read Scripture to be born of God. 

But which opinion means that such are misled as to what SS means, versus "alone" meaning Scripture alone is the only infallible, supreme, standard of express Divine public revelation, to which all must agree with, and as the sole sure substantive source and authority on doctrine, it is  sufficient (in its formally and material senses* combined) to  provide all that is needed for salvation and growth in grace, by which  one can (not necessarily all will) do so thereby. 

As in the words of the Westminster Confession,

what is "the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for God's 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."

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them"   (necessary things).

The "due use of the ordinary means" can include helps such  as dictionaries and commentaries (which abound among SS advocates), as Scripture materially provides for the gifts such as teaching. 

As well as providing for administration, that of the teaching office of the church: 

And thus it is affirmed,

 "It belongeth 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..." 

Also, as a matter of material providence:

.".we acknowledge...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.” http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html 

And since Scripture also testifies to and affirms the recognition and establishment of a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings by the time of Christ, so also it provided for the complete canon of Scripture.
For a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings was manifestly established by the time of Christ as being “Scripture, (”in all the Scriptures” - Lk. 24:27) “ even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings. ( Lk. 24:44). 

 And which body provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church (which was thus a product of Scripture)

And regarding the objections of how Scripture alone can be the wholly inspired, sure, supreme and sufficient (in its formal and material senses) standard on faith and morals, when Paul referred to keeping oral tradition 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and the church as being the foundation of the Truth, and that souls could be regenerated without a complete Bible or being able to read it, then it is because,

1. From Adam onward, God always provided enough revelation for obedience to Him, which (aside from general revelation of nature, and morally of conscience) before Moses, was in a very limited sense and expressly to a limited amount of persons  who thus shared it.

But when choosing to reveal Himself more fully and to an entire nation, God committed His word to writing, this manifestly being His  chosen means of preservation, versus  materially insubstantial  untestable oral transmission which is highly vulnerable to undetectable  corruption   (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

2. As with Moses, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither of which even Rome presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do. Yet  Scripture had become the standard by which even the veracity of  even the apostles could be subject to testing by:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

Likewise, as from Adam onward, souls today can be saved who do not personally possess a Bible or are able to read Scripture, as faith comes by hearing the word of God, and those who hear the Truth of gospel of the grace of God, and convicted of their need for salvation thereby can be saved thru those who share that truth.  By the grace of God souls could hear  the basic message of  Acts 10:43-47 and could be saved, and go on from there.

But it is Scripture that alone is the sure supreme standard for the veracity of what is taught, and formally provides necessary Truth, explicitly or implicitly, and materially provides for teachers, etc. Thus what is taught must be the Truth of Scripture, versus contrivances as the  assumption of the Assumption. 

3. Moreover, under the alternative of sola ecclesia, one can only assume that what their church teaches as oral tradition includes the teachings Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. 

And for a RC, the assurance (that something is the word of God) is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, which itself is based upon so-called tradition (nowhere in Scripture is perpetual magisterial veracity in all universally binding matters of faith and morals promised or seen, nor is that how God preserved faith, nor is it required for authority). 

4. While Catholicism presumes that what Paul referred to as tradition is part of its body of unwritten oral tradition, but which cannot be proved and the premise that unwritten oral tradition is the word of God is  based upon its own tradition of ensured   perpetual magisterial veracity.  

However we can assume that what Paul referred to as tradition was subsequently written down, since God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation of the word of God. 

5. And it is abundantly evidenced 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. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.

6. Rather than an infallible magisterium being required for a body of wholly God-inspired  writings to be established as being from God, as mentioned, a  body of authoritative writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture ("in all the Scriptures:" Lk. 24:27), even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)

7. None of the few Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach that the magisterial office of the church is supreme over Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillars”). And Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and the latter was built upon the prophetic, doctrinal epistemological foundation of transcendent Scripture. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church.

[daniel1212]

You asked for it, agent provocateur. Next: Step-by-Step Refutation of Dave Armstrong vs. Sola Scriptura

 A Step-by-Step Refutation of Dave Armstrong vs. Sola Scriptura 

This was to be a reply to a Catholic who posted Armstrong's apologetic on a forum, but which was pulled before I could post it. It takes me a long time to type with my arthritic fingers, and  rather than let my work go to waste I thought I would post it here.  

Note that (as i suspected and later found out) Armstrong's work is from many years ago (2003), and he has posted a reply to a challenger that I have not read, and most likely will not be dealing with, but which has the the link to the original  and is here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/01/defense-of-my-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura.html 

I tried to notify Armstrong of my response here but received this when I tried: "We are unable to post your comment because you have been banned by Biblical Evidence for Catholicism"
 
1. Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one

Actually papal teaching is that,

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... (Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html) 

but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. 

Which means that Armstrong is teaching sola Roma, that she, "The Church" alone is the sure supreme and sufficient standard for faith and morals, providing all the essential oral and written express public revelation of God.

However, while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, yet even Rome does not presume its popes and ecumenical councils do either in declaring what they "infallibly" assert is the word of God.

Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation... God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error....God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. - Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm 

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. 

Actually, SS does not need to mean that sufficiency refers to only what is formally provides (such as by clear statements), but that,

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:...

those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means , may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them...

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. 

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience...
- The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646  (emp. mine).

 
And actually Catholics can and do disagree on whether every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly.

As James White states,

"Rome's official statements do not explicitly define whether Tradition is the second of a two-part revelation (known as partim-partim), or if both forms of revelation contain the entirety of God's revealed truth." http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3319

2. “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. 

SS holds that men such as the prophets and apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, yet this does not validate the "infallible" claim of Rome to infallibly do so, (as pointed under #2), and  even Rome does not presume its popes and ecumenical councils do either in declaring what they say is the word of God.

Moreover Armstrong's polemic "proves too much," for the only reason Armstrong can cite this is because it was written.

For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

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 

3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word 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. 

Which polemic presumes what it cannot prove, that, "This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture." And what is the basis for this assertion is True? Because 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.

(Consistent with this, in Catholic theology it is taught than man cannot now what Scripture consists of apart from her, and thus Scripture is to be appealed to as a merely historical document. By which the potential convert is supposed to see that the RCC is of God even  though the poor soul cannot discern wholly inspired Scripture as being of God. Which is consistent Rome's exalted view of herself, but contrary to the fact that an  a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ - without an infallible magisterium) 

Thus as Keating said regarding (the assumption of) the Assumption,

The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275. 

Which is circular, and is to be remembered when Armstrong later tries to argue what the SS position is.

4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions 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. 

This is true, as we know. And Paul also quoted a pagan, (Acts 17:28) and Jude quoted from Enoch.

But only texts from  the Hebrew's canonical books are referred to as Scripture. Meanwhile again, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, which  Rome does not presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do either in declaring what they say is the word of God.

5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem 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: 

Indeed they did,  with James providing the final judgment, and which council flows from the OT (Dt. 17:8-13) to which  conditional (Acts 5:29) obedience in required, as it is toward all authority. (Rm. 13:7-7)  But contrary to Armstrong, this is  not contrary to SS, for again as Westminster states:

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; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. ( CHAPTER XXXI.)

The distinction Armstrong misses is between being the sure and supreme sufficient standard on Truth, versus judicial authority for church on earth. The OT version of the supreme court certainly had authority, (Dt. 17:8-13) - dissent was a capital offense - but it was not infallible. And the ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is nowhere promised or necessary in Scripture.

6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition.. 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. 

This again "proves too much," for those who sat in the seat of Moses were no more infallible than Rome is, and taught traditions of men that the Lord reproved from Scripture as being supreme. And even the veracity of the apostles was subject to testing by the Scriptures by noble men. (Acts 17:11)

Yet Rome effectively presumes she is above such, even declaring belief in the Assumption of Mary to be dogma, which was so lacking even in early testimony of Tradition (where it would be found) that chief scholars of Rome opposed it being declared apostolic doctrine . But for Rome, history, tradition and Scripture only authoritatively consist of and mean what she says - if she does say to herself!

Thus we see distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. and which best shows how the NT church understood the OT and gospels).

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in 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). 

This also fails to make distinction between being the sure and supreme sufficient standard on Truth, versus earthly judicial authority. Meanwhile Ezra could also speak and write as wholly inspired of God, unlike popes and councils.

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). 

Which is not an argument against SS, seeing as it affirms the magisterial office, and thus Armstrong is arguing against a strawman. For what Armstrong is not stating is that of his novel and unScriptural premise, that of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome
 
8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant “Proof Text” “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 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).

Which argument is again invalid since Rome does not speak as wholly inspired apostles, prophets and writers did, while what Scripture materially provides is part of SS sufficiency, and thus it affirms teachers, and evangelicalism abounds with teaching aids. What  we  lack  is a central magisterium, which is Scriptural, but which concept Rome has poisoned by presuming too much of herself and by her corruption.

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. 

This logical fallacy is akin to Armstrong's failure to differentiate between the only infallible source/authority on Truth, and earthly judicial authority. Here the difference is between pastors and teachers etc. and what materially equips them to be part of the church and for it to grow in grace.

For the church itself was manifestly prophetically and doctrinally built upon Scripture, and by which use in doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, "the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

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.” 

Which again both proves too much, since we only know of this reference because God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. And that once again, popes and councils do not speak as wholly inspired of God, though councils can be the supreme judicial authority in the church on earth.

Nor can Rome prove she is teaching what the apostles orally did, as instead faithful Catholics are supposed to take her word for it.

10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position 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.” 

Asserting that the Constitution (or Bible) is true because it says so is circular, but once that is settled, arguing about what the Constitution teaches and says about itself is not circular.

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. 

Again, SS affirms the judicial office, but not as possessing ensured infallibility, which is the real argument Armstrong does not make.

And rather than an infallible magisterium being required  for writings to be established as being from God, Scripture attests that a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)

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. 

This also is a logically self-defeating since Rome herself has neither defined all the issues that RCS can disagree on, nor what magisterial level each belongs to, and what she has taught is subject to varying degrees of variant interpretations. And today Catholicism exists as a collection of formal and informal sects. And rather than her magisterium providing unity, as one poster wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html) And as what we really believe is shown by what we do, Rome shows her interpretation of what/who she inclusively constitutes a member can be by manifestly treating even liberal proabortion, prohomosexual public figures as members in life and in death.

In addition, considering what is broadly classed as Protestantism then comparing one church, albeit existing in schisms and sects, with such a broad class is invalid.

'But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” 

Actually, once again Armstrong needs to be schooled:
In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith." (CCC 90) 

and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion." 

Armstrong here in engaging in sophistry by blaming SS for division, a problem which his alternative has not solved, while most of what he describes is among those who do not take Scripture seriously, and mischaracterizes such.

Meanwhile Catholics attest to being far less unified in core beliefs/values than those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, which Catholics attack as a basis for unity.

And under his alternative to SS then submission to Rome is the answer, and Rome shows her interpretation of what constitutes a member by manifestly considering liberal proabortion, prohomosexual souls as members in life and in death, while officially teaching false doctrine even on salvation, then her's is a unity that leads to Hell.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Revelation 18:4) 

[ebb tide]

🥱

[MayflowerMadam]

LOL!

[BarbM]

I believe in the words of the Messiah

[ealgeone]

And you see the expected reply. Typical of those who have no intellectual capacity and instead react with the mindset of a child who isn’t getting their way.

[kinsman redeemer]

I am absolutely CERTAIN that your post will settle the matter for good and ebb tide will repent, trust Jesus, get baptized, tell people about his amazing journey to salvation, and join a good, Bible-believing church in his neighborhood.

[JesusIsLord]

Eternal damnation is the most terrifying concept of all time, and if you were convinced you could not possibly do anything right, would you not cling to an anachronism that gave you hope that avoid Hell by a legal loophole?

The legal loophole you mention is Christ! He is the priest & sacrifice. Christians see Christ as the lamb of God, sacrificed for and complete payment for their sins. The Law shows you that you are a sinner. If the Law could save a soul, then Jesus was not needed. Let me suggest you read the gospel of John, if you've not done so. Also, teaching from Rabbi Jason Sobel may interest you.

[patriot torch]

I am absolutely CERTAIN that your post will settle the matter for good and ebb tide will repent, trust Jesus, get baptized, tell people about his amazing journey to salvation, and join a good, Bible-believing church in his neighborhood.

___________________________

Or..........

he continues to rebell against God trusting instead in his own dead works.

And one day may stand before the White Throne Judgement and when the Books are opened and his name is not found, will find himself alone, without an Advocate.

What will be his answer?

That the Sacrifice at Calvary wasn’t enough? But instead, he trusted in his own dead works, found to be burned in the fire as chaff when tried.

[ealgeone]

I do believe that falls under the category of a "mortal sin" (per Roman Catholicism but not Scripture).

Those who commit those are without benefit of gaining heaven until they can get to a priest, properly confess, do penance and then participate in the Mass (again per Roman Catholicism but not Scripture).

If a person is placing any hope in a man-made scapular they are further condemned as they have abandoned the Gospel for another gospel...which as Scripture notes is a false gospel.

However, Scripture tells us believers can ask God for forgiveness for all of our sins.

[kinsman redeemer]

What will be his answer?

"🥱"

[kinsman redeemer]

Or, maybe this gem:

"Bible Only is dumb."

[daniel1212]

I am absolutely CERTAIN that your post will settle the matter for good and ebb tide will repent, trust Jesus, get baptized, tell people about his amazing journey to salvation, and join a good, Bible-believing church in his neighborhood.

Well, that is my hope and prayer for such, while such continued provocative posting of prevaricating polemics should not go uncountered, even if it an argument against being a Catholic, sometimes by posters who themselves argue against being a Catholic in submission to the pope that RC leadership elected, and thus evidently argue for a pope-less RC church. While citing divisions as an argument against straw men SS.