Sola Scriptura is Sound

Hello,I would like to wish both Pro and All our readers a Merry Christmas in advance.I also apologize for the many typos I made in the previous argument.It was somewhat embarrassing. I hope I avoid them this time.Firstly,I would like to remind readers that Sola in Latin means 'Alone' and scriptura means 'Scriptures'.Therefore, Sola Scriptura means Scriptures Alone.Pro is saying "Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.".This should automatically mean that ignoring sacred tradition, that defined scripture in the first place, as an unnecessary extra is allowed.If you believe that everything is already there in the Bible, why do you need anything else?It makes no logical sense to keep other aspects alive.In contrast,Catholicism believes that the Bible is the Word of God, written under the breath of the Holy Spirit.It believes also however, that the sacred tradition and teachings given to the Apostles must be preserved and are of equal importance to the christian faith, and it sums up the tradition as well as the decisions made by the Elders(Magisterium) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.I am arguing that ever since the Bible itself was compiled, there were many aspects of the faith that were a part of sacred tradition alone, and that that the bible requires the Guidance of spiritual elders and Bishops for interpretation.These Spiritual elders must be part of an unbroken tradition("The Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it") and must be the direct spiritual descendants of the Apostles themselves(i.e the Pope and the Magisterium).The sacred tradition as well as the directives of the Magisterium deal with all aspects of the faith that are not covered in the Bible, and are just as infallible as the Bible.We can see that Pro seems to be coming up with a self contradictory definition, where he says that tradition and the authority of Bishops(Magisterium) are also accepted. I find it really amusing, because this has been the exact same belief that the Catholic Church taught since the very beginning.Now,I really wonder what the Protestants who started Sola Scriptura were 'protesting' against, as Pro is implying that they believed in both the tradition and the Authority of Bishops for interpretation.At this point,I want to ask Pro if he believes that Roman Catholic Christians are 'Sola Scriptura' too?We too believe that the Bible is 'more sure Word," standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty.'Every accepted tradition and decree of the Magisterium and the Pope MUST be biblically defended and compared before it is pronounced as Dogma and if any of the Papal Bulls or Encyclicals are contrary to the Bible, the Pope automatically loses his office and is tried as a heretic.However we believe that wherever the tradition and the Magisterium make a ruling about something that is not mentioned in the Bible, it becomes an equal authority to the Bible in that case.I would like to point out to the readers that many central doctrines of Christianity, such as Christ being consubstantial(one) with the father(Homoousios) , the mystery of the holy trinity, original sin etc are not explicitly declared anywhere in the Bible.Many 'Bible-alone' heretics could come up with biblical arguments against all of them(eg. Arians,Unitarians etc), yet it was the interpretation consistent with tradition and the decision of the Magisterium that was final and helped in times of confusion.(Homoousios is not even a biblical word)Also, Pro himself is making so many points about the inadequacy of scripture himself.He himself agrees that:1."Actually Sola Scriptura, as I mentioned up above, does not exclude the idea of oral traditions"2.'Sola Scriptura is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture.'3."Sola Scriptura does not claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture"He can't even come up with a list of books that must be in the Bible from the Bible itself.This is something of crucial importance to the Christian faith and is implicitly agreeing that other authorities are needed.He cannot also provide an explicit quote from the Bible to support his claim.So I really wonder why he still chooses to believe in Sola Scriptura.Now to rebut some of the other points raised by Pro:(I am rebutting them in the order of perceived importance and relevance.I am sorry if some points are missed out due to lack of space.)1."All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.""-2nd Timothy 3:15-17This is the quote Pro is giving as biblical proof for sola scriptura.It merely says that all of the scripture is useful.It does not say ONLY scripture is useful(SOLA scriptura).I have given so many quotes to show that oral tradition is important as well, from epistles written by St.Paul himself.It becomes obvious, when oral tradition, 'Pattern of Sound words' etc is stressed as important and distinct from scripture, an explicit verse condemning SOLA scriptura is not necessary.You are the one making the claim that scripture alone is sufficient,yet scripture alone is not sufficient even to defend your claim.You had to refer to the tradition of early fathers to get support."Con also assumes that Paul appealed to something other than scripture. However, this is false."I am not assuming, I am asserting that St.Paul appealed to something other than scripture!It was he who gives ample proof that Oral and written tradition was distinct and laid special stress on the 'Pattern of the Sound words'.Scripture is only that which is written.Oral tradition is not called scripture.I quote the relevant verses once again for your convenience:"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)."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)"Did Paul appeal to a magestirium or bishop as the sole basis for this early creed? No, Paul received this from the apostles, whom they received from Christ because Christ was resurrected from the Dead"Pro does not seem to know the origin of Bishops and the Magisterium, and is making another self-contradictory claim.The apostles passed the authority given to them on to others through the 'laying of hands'-"Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you."-1Tim 4:14The Magisterium consists of Bishops who are the direct spiritual descendants of the apostles themselves.The Pope is the descendant of the head of the Apostles St.Peter.I am giving you a list of all those who succeeded St.Peter right up to the current Pope Francis in the sources to prove that only the Catholic church has this unbroken tradition.[1]This is Ideal, because it shows that Pro agrees that even St.Paul, who had received direct communication from God, witnessed a miracle, and wrote parts of the Bible, relied on the authority of the Apostles.How can we who are not even fit to 'undo the Sandals of Saint Paul' claim to be able to interpret scripture independently of the Magisterium, their spiritual descendants?"God's word addresses science and morality, so I don't see the issue here."What about abortion and contraception?what about stem cell research?what about human and animal cloning?what about the LHC?what about the million other things that are the result of the explosion of technological advancement in the 19th century like internet pornography and psychedelic drugs? These things are not mentioned explicitly anywhere in the Bible and we need the guidance of the Holy spirit to discern what is right and wrong.The promise of infallibility was given only to St.Peter the 'Rock', and to the Apostles.The Bible's silence does not mean we can do whatever we want.This is relevant to the rebuttal of the next point."Con assumes that I believe the Canon of Scripture is closed. However, I did not necessarily say that it's directly closed. There could be other scriptures out there that we don't know about. I believe it's closed in the sense that, God has revealed everything to man-kind, from Genesis to Revelation."So who in your opinion is going to decide whether something is scripture or not?On what basis?I am saying that the written proclamations of the Catholic church about things that are outside the scripture are inspired by the holy Spirit, does sola scriptura accept it?The Magisterium consist of the spiritual descendants of the Apostles, If they declare that the Catholic Catechism is inspired, will Sola Sciptura agree?"What John believed was that nothing more should be added to the inspiration of Scripture. The Book of Revelations was the final eschatological conclusion of everything that God had revealed."But how did John know that if the Bible was not even compiled at his time.On one hand,Pro claims that the canon of scripture is not closed, that more books can be 'discovered', on the other hand he says John has concluded everything mentioned in the Bible.more self-contradiction.I look forward to the Q&A round.I think I have to ask the questions first.thank you!CynicalDiogenesSources:http://www.newadvent.org...http://www.biblegateway.com...