Sola Scriptura is Sound

Hello Janetsanders733,I hope this turns out to be a an interesting discussion.Firstly, I would like to present the view of the catholic church on the very nature of the Bible:Catholic Dogma Says:"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.""God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."-Catechism Of The Catholic ChurchSo the Catholic Church completely believes that the bible is inerrant too.But that is not what this debate is about.The Catholic church believes that the scriptures are the standard and final authority for all spiritual matters and theological matters of the Christian faith,but, as the Bible is surprisingly silent on a wide variety of issues,because guidance is needed to interpret scripture in many places, and because the bible itseelf mentions the existence of teachings that are never mentioned or explained in detail anywhere else in the bible, Tradition, as well as the Authority of the Magisterium(Bishops) are also required to fully define the Christian Faith.We believe that you err in that you believe in Sola(only) scripture and seem to imply that tradition and the authority of Bishops(Episcopos) and priests(elders) is not only not needed,but is contrary to what is written in the Bible.This makes it impossible for anyone to fully be a christian without a complete Bible.I am sorry, in latin, Sola Scriptura means bible ONLY, and it negates the importance of the tradition by it's very definition.I will demonstrate how absurd this premise is later in the debate.1.What is the Bible?Firstly,using the Bible ALONE, one cannot even define what the Bible is.I am sure you must be aware that the Protestant Bible has only 66 books, while the catholic Bible has 73 Books and some Orthodox Christians have 81 Books.Using the Bible alone, we cannot even determine which is the correct Bible and must invariably turn to historic sources and Apostolic tradition.Isn't knowing what books are in the Bible something that is necessary, binding on our consciences, and something that God requires of us?If so, then why isn't it defined in the Bible?The Bible quotes you gave are equally interesting, because you are quoting from the Deutronomy, which is an Old testament book, so aren't we adding to the old testament with the New testament?The Bible never even existed when the Book of Revelation was written, so it is more likely that the author was referring to the Book of revelation alone.2.Further practical problems believeing in Bible aloneSecondly,scripture alone opens up a wide variety of problems, and a number of difficult questions: where is it written that divine revelation has stopped?Is a specific date mentioned in the Bible?Why does divine inspiration come with an expiry date then?Why can't we keep adding to what is considered as scripture?Why would God leave so many unanswered questions and leave us alone in the dark when advances in science open up moral and ethical questions?Also,The discovery of the Nag Hammadi scrolls shows that before the Synod of Hippo,there were a wide number of Gospels having a multitude of errors such as the Gospel of Philip, that implied Jesus had sexual relations with Mary Magdalene,The Gospel of Mary Magelene and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, both which claimed that Gnostic christians were given a 'secret teaching', and the Syriac Gospel of Thomas that even claimed Jesus had an evil look-alike twin called Judas!How can you refute all these heretic Gospels using the Bible alone?I want you to bear in mind that the 4 Canonical Gospels often contradict each other too.All of this relies on the wisdom of the earliest Bishops(Including the Bishop in Rome) and the promise given to the Apostles that Peter would be the foundation against whom the gates of hell can never prevail and the implicit protection from doctrinal error.Thus tradition and the Authority of the Magisterium(Bishops) becomes crucial for even defining the Bible for you.These two obviously predate the Bible itself.The Bible was defined and authority, because the Holy spirit declared this authority and communicated it to the Magisterium.As you rightfully mentioned, certain other aspects of the faith as well that are simply not mentioned in the Bible, but are part of oral tradition alone.We believe that the Bible is a part of the Apostolic tradition(teaching).The authority was given to oral and written tradition, the bible is merely the written part of that tradition, to ignore the oral part would not just be wrong, it would be heresy.Even if all the oral parts never contradict the written part, I can say that the written part never contradict the oral part either.By claiming that written scripture alone is necessary, you are ignoring an important part of the teachings that defined the Bible in the first place.3.Early christiansThirdly,We can see that the early Christians lived without a defined scripture or 'Bible' for longer than America has been a country.Literacy was not widespread until well after the medieval era , and most of the books and epistles were not even written yet!We learn that many Greeks and Romans had converted to christianity from the very beginning, It is highly unlikely that they could read the Hebrew scriptures.So most of the earliest converts were definitely Christian, but they were christian even without the knowledge of the scripture.This makes any claim for 'SOLA scriptura' really dubious.The Early christian Fathers did not have the Canon that we have with us today.so they did not even have the Bible.I have demonstrated how the canon of books and the word 'Bible' was not even officially defined till the Synod of Hippo in 393.It is highly unlikely that they would have referred to the 'Bible' that you and I have when the were refering to 'scripture'(although the old testament books may have been the same.)Even after the Bible was defined, it wasn't until the invention of the printing press that the bible became easily available for most christians.Before that, a single Bible was simply affordable.So most christians could not even read the Bible.4.what does the Bible really say?Lastly, the Bible itself never makes any claim that scripture 'alone' is sufficient.I challenge you to give me a Biblical verse that says written tradition and scripture alone is sufficient.You had to refer to the teachings of the earliest fathers, but isn't that not allowed?whenever the teachings are mentioned in the Bible, BOTH written and oral traditions are always mentioned.There are many learned Catholic theologans who have given over a hundred biblical verses against Sola Scriptura.I have mentioned them in the sources as I have a severe shortage of space.However, my aim is to show that tradition also existed as separate and complementary to scripture in the scriptures themselves:"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2)."Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6)."So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).In the third verse,St.Paul speaks of Sacred Tradition as being taught both orally and in writing. The written teaching would later be canonized as Sacred Scripture, so this verse suggests how Sacred Tradition preceded Sacred Scripture and clearly mentions written teachings as distinct from oral teachings. Furthermore,near the end of St.Paul’s ministry he instructed Timothy to carry on the Sacred Tradition passed down to him: "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14). Paul went on to instruct Timothy to pass down that Sacred Tradition to others: "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).It is almost ironic how Pro is relying mainly on the tradition of the early fathers to argue for 'only' scripture, while I am relying almost purely on biblical sources for my claims about the importance of scripture.I assert in conclusion that,Throughout history, the Catholic Church alone has continued to safeguard and teach the fullness of the Christian faith. This faith is complete only when it includes Sacred Tradition.Tradition is defined quite well in the Catechism too:"living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. ... The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer." (CCC 78)I humbly recommend you to follow what is written in scripture and to come into the fullness of faith with both.Kind Regards,CynicalDiogenesSources:http://www.catholic.com...http://www.catholic.com...;http://www.vatican.va...http://www.vatican.va...