16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
It does say ALL Scripture; it does not say ONLY Scripture - there is a difference. It is necessary to show where in fact ONLY Scripture is taught as the sole rule of faith within the Scriptures.
Tradition is not just those manmade teachings that Christ got after the Pharisees about for nullifying the word of God, but also also authoritative per the Scriptures:
1 Corinthians 11 KJV
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (παράδοσις), as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2 KJV
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions (παράδοσις) which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 3 KJV
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition (παράδοσις) which he received of us.
Even Christ speaks indirectly of the authority of Tradition when He said the following:
Matthew 23 KJV
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
We are in fact told what the following in the NT Scripture:
1 Timothy 3 KJV
14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Posting links to other articles so as to avoid engaging with what has been written here will not be tolerated. Furthermore, the article doesn't even deal with any section of Augustine consisting of more than a paragraph. That's your "good article" which honestly represents him? Laughable. Beyond that, you evidently didn't even read the article you commented on. Almost every verse you mentioned I dealt with in this article. Again, laughable. The only one I didn't deal with was Matt. 23, but that goes right along with Matt. 15 & Mark 7. Jesus tested even supposedly infallible traditions by Scripture. And the seat of Moses was where a scribe would sit to read the Scriptures. The authority did not inhere in the seat but rather the Scriptures. And if you still want to argue that the "seat of Moses" was an infallible ecclesial office, then you must deal with the fact that everyone who sat in such seats (as there were many in numerous synagogues around Israel) rejected the Apocryphal books which Rome "infallibly" claims are canonical.
Asking ignorant "gotcha" questions does not reflect well on you. You know that neither of us think Scripture must *explicitly* say something for it to teach that thing. Ex., prohibition of pedophilia, etc. I gave you verses where Sola Scriptura can be easily deduced and explained my logic in the article. It doesn't seem like you read the article. Until it's apparent that you understand the Protestant position or are willing to learn, I will not carry on a fruitless conversation.
You're clearly not a good faith interlocutor. Ample biblical evidence has been supplied, along with plenty of exegetical observations. The completely arbitrary standard you demand be met is a standard the church, Protestant and papist, agree is unnecessary. This article was intended for serious folks looking for good dialogue. Evidently that isn't you. Run along, now.
The link was intended to engage because it has direct reference to your assumptions.
The Deuterocanonical books, while rejected as canonical in modern Judaism, were not rejected completely by them in the past. Hellenistic Jews & many Diaspora Jews did accept them. I would argue that while not canonical to modern Jews, some are still referenced for history - such the Maccabees & the celebration of Hanukkah.
Even Protestants do likewise in the NT references to some books that are non-canonical - whether they acknowledge this or not.
The link did not exegete more than a paragraph of Augustine. Ridiculous. Every historical source is absolutely unanimous that the Jews of Jesus' day reject the apocrypha. This is not an oddity of modern Judaism; it's been their position forever. If you would like to continue making historical claims, you will have to start citing sources (and by the way, Catholic Answers does not count as a serious historical source; sorry). No one disputes that the Apocrypha is referenced in the NT; this proves nothing, as pagan philosophers are as well.
Forgive me if I have posted a comment more than once. The system will not allow me to see what I have posted. In addition, more from the Roman Catholic view, it would not hurt for you to at least glance at Mark Shea's small book "By What Authority?" Shea is not an authority himself -- he is a convert from a somewhat uninformed evangelical background -- but he brings out some points which I would consider vital. These have to do with truths which are accepted by most Christians down through the ages, but do not appear to be stated in Scripture nor directly drawn from Scripture, such as the belief (against various forms of Arianism) that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man. Even today, it's difficult to refute a determined Arian by using Scripture passages, because he can always bring ones that he considers you are not taking into account. You finally have to say (and this I contribute from my own experience, not Shea's book) that the Arian, or anti-Trinitarian, or Social Trinitarian belief being presented is simply not in accord with the way Christians have historically understood the Scriptures. The trouble is, that understanding that most Christians have is not written down anywhere. All (most?) of the Reformers had the same understandings, as did Augustine and the other Church Fathers you quote, and so they believe that it's obvious that everything necessary for faith is revealed in Scripture. What do you do with a heretic who does not accept those understandings which "everybody" knows?
Alex, you should read (possibly you have done so) J. I. Packer's book "Fundamentalism and the Word of God." I think I am right in saying that he defines the Roman Catholic understanding of inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture as being "the infallible Word of God interpreted by an infallible Church." It seems to me that that statement (fairly accurate to Roman Catholic teaching as far as I am aware) takes a slightly different tack than some of the arguments you have mentioned.
There’s actually a good article on Augustine & sola scriptura here:
https://chnetwork.org/2014/08/11/st-augustine-sola-scriptura/
2 Timothy 3 KJV
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
It does say ALL Scripture; it does not say ONLY Scripture - there is a difference. It is necessary to show where in fact ONLY Scripture is taught as the sole rule of faith within the Scriptures.
Tradition is not just those manmade teachings that Christ got after the Pharisees about for nullifying the word of God, but also also authoritative per the Scriptures:
1 Corinthians 11 KJV
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (παράδοσις), as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2 KJV
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions (παράδοσις) which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 3 KJV
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition (παράδοσις) which he received of us.
Even Christ speaks indirectly of the authority of Tradition when He said the following:
Matthew 23 KJV
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
From BIBLEHUB > Strong’s Concordance:
https://biblehub.com/greek/3862.htm
paradosis: a handing down or over, a tradition
Original Word: παράδοσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: paradosis
Phonetic Spelling: (par-ad'-os-is)
Definition: a handing down or over, a tradition
Usage: an instruction, tradition.
We are in fact told what the following in the NT Scripture:
1 Timothy 3 KJV
14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Posting links to other articles so as to avoid engaging with what has been written here will not be tolerated. Furthermore, the article doesn't even deal with any section of Augustine consisting of more than a paragraph. That's your "good article" which honestly represents him? Laughable. Beyond that, you evidently didn't even read the article you commented on. Almost every verse you mentioned I dealt with in this article. Again, laughable. The only one I didn't deal with was Matt. 23, but that goes right along with Matt. 15 & Mark 7. Jesus tested even supposedly infallible traditions by Scripture. And the seat of Moses was where a scribe would sit to read the Scriptures. The authority did not inhere in the seat but rather the Scriptures. And if you still want to argue that the "seat of Moses" was an infallible ecclesial office, then you must deal with the fact that everyone who sat in such seats (as there were many in numerous synagogues around Israel) rejected the Apocryphal books which Rome "infallibly" claims are canonical.
Would you please show me where in Scripture it explicitly states that Scripture is the ONLY infallible rule of faith?
That would certain help to clarify the matter.
Asking ignorant "gotcha" questions does not reflect well on you. You know that neither of us think Scripture must *explicitly* say something for it to teach that thing. Ex., prohibition of pedophilia, etc. I gave you verses where Sola Scriptura can be easily deduced and explained my logic in the article. It doesn't seem like you read the article. Until it's apparent that you understand the Protestant position or are willing to learn, I will not carry on a fruitless conversation.
You're clearly not a good faith interlocutor. Ample biblical evidence has been supplied, along with plenty of exegetical observations. The completely arbitrary standard you demand be met is a standard the church, Protestant and papist, agree is unnecessary. This article was intended for serious folks looking for good dialogue. Evidently that isn't you. Run along, now.
The link was intended to engage because it has direct reference to your assumptions.
The Deuterocanonical books, while rejected as canonical in modern Judaism, were not rejected completely by them in the past. Hellenistic Jews & many Diaspora Jews did accept them. I would argue that while not canonical to modern Jews, some are still referenced for history - such the Maccabees & the celebration of Hanukkah.
Even Protestants do likewise in the NT references to some books that are non-canonical - whether they acknowledge this or not.
The link did not exegete more than a paragraph of Augustine. Ridiculous. Every historical source is absolutely unanimous that the Jews of Jesus' day reject the apocrypha. This is not an oddity of modern Judaism; it's been their position forever. If you would like to continue making historical claims, you will have to start citing sources (and by the way, Catholic Answers does not count as a serious historical source; sorry). No one disputes that the Apocrypha is referenced in the NT; this proves nothing, as pagan philosophers are as well.
Forgive me if I have posted a comment more than once. The system will not allow me to see what I have posted. In addition, more from the Roman Catholic view, it would not hurt for you to at least glance at Mark Shea's small book "By What Authority?" Shea is not an authority himself -- he is a convert from a somewhat uninformed evangelical background -- but he brings out some points which I would consider vital. These have to do with truths which are accepted by most Christians down through the ages, but do not appear to be stated in Scripture nor directly drawn from Scripture, such as the belief (against various forms of Arianism) that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man. Even today, it's difficult to refute a determined Arian by using Scripture passages, because he can always bring ones that he considers you are not taking into account. You finally have to say (and this I contribute from my own experience, not Shea's book) that the Arian, or anti-Trinitarian, or Social Trinitarian belief being presented is simply not in accord with the way Christians have historically understood the Scriptures. The trouble is, that understanding that most Christians have is not written down anywhere. All (most?) of the Reformers had the same understandings, as did Augustine and the other Church Fathers you quote, and so they believe that it's obvious that everything necessary for faith is revealed in Scripture. What do you do with a heretic who does not accept those understandings which "everybody" knows?
For interested readers, the conversation has moved over to the Protestant Post MeWe page. Feel free to join us! https://mewe.com/join/protestantpost
Alex, you should read (possibly you have done so) J. I. Packer's book "Fundamentalism and the Word of God." I think I am right in saying that he defines the Roman Catholic understanding of inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture as being "the infallible Word of God interpreted by an infallible Church." It seems to me that that statement (fairly accurate to Roman Catholic teaching as far as I am aware) takes a slightly different tack than some of the arguments you have mentioned.