As typical, your unattributed Catholic Answers hit piece relies on a straw man of SS (though there are many unreasonable Prot. professions of it), which it does not even reference one single historical source,
If so, then why would no less than the Westminster Confession state that while Scripture the Truth needed for man's salvation, faith and life is "either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture,"
"Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."
And that,
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.
Also in explanation is this:
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. - James White, Sola Scriptura in Dialogue
From evangelical authorities Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie:
"By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals)... the final authority for our faith...They are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters. However good they may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, Popes, and Councils are fallible."
"...The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. This does not mean — as Catholics often assume — that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. Indeed, Protestants accept the great theological and Christological pronouncements of the first four ecumenical Councils. What is more, most Protestants have high regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible. So this is not to say there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance. "
[FONT=Liberation Sans, sans-serif]— [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Sans, sans-serif]http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf[/FONT]
But we know this because of Scripture, and that the oral preaching was subject to examination by that which was written as wholly inspired of God, by which Christ and the church reproved the devil, (Mt. 4) and the stewards of oral and written tradition, (Mt. 22) and established His Messiahship and ministry to the disciples, and opened up their minds to it. (Lk. 24:44,45) And to which the NT appealed to. (Acts 17:2,11; 18:28)
Thus as is
abundantly evidenced the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And it is by inclusion in Scripture that we know what part of oral preaching was the word of God, and that this oral preaching included new public revelation which Rome does not claim to provide, nor to speak under the inspiration of God as per Scripture.
Nor is an infallible magisterium needed to ascertain both men and preaching as being of God, as the church began with common people having ascertained such, even in dissent from the historical magisterial stewards of Divine revelation, and which discernment and establishment Scripture provides for, and thus for additions to Scripture of writings of like heavenly qualities and attestation, and for establishment of a canon due to such.
Thus Scripture alone is the supreme infallible standard, and sufficient in its formal and material aspects, while Rome cannot tells us what the contemporary oral preaching Paul was specifically enjoining obedience to in texts such as 2Thes. 3:15, thus Caths cannot do so, nor does she claim to speak under the inspiration of Scripture or provide new public revelation.
Thus while while we know what oral preaching is binding by its inclusion in Divinely established Scripture, separating the "wheat" or oral transmission from the "tares" - which written form is the Divine means of preservation and supreme standard, versus the amorphous form of handed down tradition, yet Rome presumes that the use of contemporary oral preaching in Scripture justifies enjoining obedience to whatever her non-inspired promulgations assert are oral tradition.
However, she is not preaching as the apostles nor inspired writers, and the veracity of her traditions rests upon the the novel a premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture. But which itself invokes tradition.
As Ratzinger essentially affirmed in trying to justify the Assumption being made an article of faith (over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred), Rome presumes she can "remember" as tradition what is critically lacking in evidence from tradition, with as Keating says, Rome's promulgation of it as a fact guarantees that it is. And logically, so As is the very premise that Rome is infallible, since she infallibly defined herself as so being!
While Rome wants to make whatever she decrees out of amorphous oral transmission to be the word of God and equal with Scripture, she herself via her law is the supreme authority on Truth, providing all the that is needed for salvation, thus operating under "sola Roma."
Actually, what it teaches is that while
there are "many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book," (John 20:30) yet though he could have provided more, what John provides in writing what is sufficient for salvation, which in essence supports SS, though God gives more grace by writing more.
Thus the issue is not the sufficiency of Scripture for salvation, but whether Scripture provides all the public revelatory grace God willed to give to man. Yet even if it is allowed that God is still providing public revelatory Truth, which may be held in Pentecostalism, yet as in Scripture the validity of this as being the word of God is not to be based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, but conformity with the established, wholly inspired word of God, the Scriptures, in word and in power.
Actually, if John distinguished btwn what could be known and what was written for salvation, then in principal it supports what is written being sufficient for salvation and theology, versus giving a church the authority to declare whatever it will as being the word of God, based upon the premise that it cannot err in so doing.
Which is mere sophistry, as in fact Scripture, if not the entire Bible, was essential for salvation, for the gospel depended upon it.
"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith."(Romans 1:1-2; 16:26)
And to make Scripture insufficient for salvation is contrary to it, as souls today could read what souls heard (as in Acts 10:36-43) and born again by faith.
Irrelevant, as the gold standard status of Scripture in quality and ability does not mean it must always be possessed, and one can preach Scriptural truths without possessing it, and thus a SS preacher could orally preach what Scripture says even if neither he nor the hearers had a Bible, but the veracity of his preaching presumes that it is subject to examination by Scripture, as that of the apostles were, (Acts 17:11) and thereby proven to be Scriptural.
The idea of oral preaching that is not subject to examination an establishment by Scripture, but is the word of God based upon the premise of the ensured personal or corporate veracity of the preachers in the light of their historical lineage, is clearly unScriptural.
Actually, what was orally preached abundantly appealed to wholly inspired Scripture, and which men such as Timothy were taught from as children, and while men as Chrysostom exhorted laity to obtain the Scriptures, Rome exalted herself above the Scriptures, and came to much
hinder personal and free access to the Scriptures that were available.
Indeed, as that is simply not all it says, but while Scripture is the only substantive transcendent body of Truth that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, it is stated that it instrumentally is used "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
This is nowhere said of oral tradition, though some of Scripture was first expressed therein, but by its very form as orally passed down is supremely subject to undetectable corruption.
I need not refute the same fallcious arguments again, but will address a few attempts:
And which Newman imagines translates into the Roman doctrine, but as shown the latter is a different animal. Apostolic tradition was subject to examination by Scripture as the transcendent supreme standard, to which Paul often appealed to, while the secondary form of attestation, that of supernatural power, was another form of Scriptural substantiation, as Scripture teaches this form and the use it has.
But again, while a SS preacher can enjoin obedience to oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, this is not the same thing as claiming to fully speak under the inspiration of God and to provide new public revelation which apostolic preaching and teaching could, but Rome does not claim to.
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2)
And Newman must refer to Scripture to say this, but cannot tell us what Timothy was taught outside of what is written.
And what did Timothy hear of Paul, but that Scripture alone was the supreme transcendent substantive wholly inspired word of God, with Paul and others establishing truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures... (Acts 17:2)
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? (Hebrews 2:4)
But which Newman and Caths cannot obey, since they cannot prove that they know what Paul was referring to outside what is written, by which we have assurance of what is of God.
And as said, a SS preacher can enjoin the same thing Paul does if referring to oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, while in teaching tradition Rome does not claim to be speaking under the inspiration of God as per Scripture, or to provide new revelation.
Moreover, if exhortations to obedience of oral preaching makes another stream of Divine revelation is needed, then by that measure SS was taught in the OT:
This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. (Joshua 1:8)
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them. (Deuteronomy 17:18-19)
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)
Thus oral preaching was subject to examination by that which is written, whether by devils (Mt. 4) or disciples of Christ, (Acts 17:11) and we are not to think of men above that which is written, (1Co. 4:6) but which is what Rome does by making herself the supreme standard.
Which was that of the contemporary preaching of Scriptural teaching, and subject to examination thereby, (Acts 17:11) and could include new revelation, (Eph. 3) versus claiming ensured infallibility to give credence to ancient passed-down stories. As said, Rome's tradition is a different animal.
Which included those who ministered in the name of Christ but who were not part of the apostle's company, whom they tried to censor, but were overruled by the Lord. (Mk. 9:38-40)
Moreover, there were no manifest apostolic successors after Judas (though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which (for Judas) was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)
Furthermore, Rome's so-called apostolic successors fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)
Yet Paul proceeds to quote Scripture as being what Isaiah and Moses said, (Rm. 10:18-21) which is the assured established word of God, to which all oral preaching much conform to and is established by, rather than the premise of ensured veracity of the speaker in the light of historical lineage, as per Rome.
Which SS does not, but as John could have provided more, it was what was written that he provided for salvation.
Nowhere does Scripture support the premise that the word of God is whatever a church says it is under the premise of ensured magisterial veracity.
WRONG, except by inclusion in writings, as that is God's chosen means of preservation, while by its very form oral transmission down thru centuries is supremely susceptible to undetectable corruption.
And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.. (Exodus 17:14)
And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. (Exodus 34:27)
And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing.. (Deuteronomy 10:4)
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)
And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law,..(Deuteronomy 27:3)
And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (Deuteronomy 31:24)
While before the Word was written, the oral law was the standard, God only expressly revealing His will in a very limited degree to a very limited amount of people. But after manifestly revealing Himself in holiness and power to an entire people, and entering into covenant with them, the Lord provided His word extensively and preserved it in writing, which became the standard for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims, a pattern with the church would follow.
Nowhere is this said of oral transmission of the OT word of God, and Catholic claims for their oral transmission being the word of God is no more valid than that of Jewish claims to the same.
Moreover, "Preached" vs, "written" is a false dichotomy. And how do we know that what is claimed to be the word of God really is? Because the church has declared it is infallible, or by inclusion in Scripture? Peter is actually writing under the inspiration of God what Caths want to use in order to justify the carte blanche of Rome to make whatever she wills to be equal to Scripture.
What Newman ignores is what Peter also says regarding the word of God:
And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:18-21)
Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. (1 Peter 1:16)
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. (1 Peter 2:6)
This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: (2 Peter 3:1)
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)
Note that Scripture is the more sure word of God, and is what even the devil used as being the authoritative word of God, which the Lord judged traditions by, yet Rome thinks that whatever she declares is the word of God out of the amorphous body of oral transmission is equal to Scripture, under the premise of ensired magisterial infallibility. Which is a different animal than Biblical oral tradition, which we know is of God by its inclusion in wholly inspired-of-God Scripture. Thank God.
Which we know from writing, and which the oral teachings of Paul testified was the chosen means of preservation of the word of God , which Paul relied on and did not quote passed-down oral transmission as a body of Divine revelation.
It indeed can include that, as the nature of the evidence, or lack thereof, for the Assumption attests, but since the veracity of this event rests upon the self-proclaimed infallibility of Rome, thus RCs are mandated to believe it!
According to Rome, based upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
Wresting Scripture, as Peter warned, as Luke 10:16 is not speaking of heeding whatever a church says based on the premise that it is right in the light of its historical lineage. Those who sat in the seat of Moses presumed that, which the church began in dissent from.
More misappropriation, as Ephesians 3:5 actually does not refer to orally passed down tradition, but new revelation as to the nature of the church which was not known in the past.
More misappropriation and presumption, as this promised guidance of the Spirit is not at all a promise to the church, or a church that presumes its historical lineage makes it the one true one, and
erroneously interprets herself as being of the same faith as the NT church.
Instead, God often preserved faith by raising up men from without the historical magisterium which they corrected. And thus the church itself actually began upon the foundation of dissidents, the apostles and prophets, in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments 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 they followed an itinerant Preacher and disciples whom the magisterium rejected, and whom they reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established their Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (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.)
Presuming infallible autocratic authority is appealing, and cultic, but it is not Scriptural, and the church must rely on overcoming challenges and warranting belief in its teaching the way that it began, upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, nor in self-proclamation of itself as infallible.
But Newman's presumption is that there is a difference rests upon another presumption, that Rome is infallible in declaring one is the word of God and another is not, which itself is a tradition of men, unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.
The OT magisterium certainly had authority, dissent being a capital offense, (Dt,. 17:8-13) and as sitting in the seat of Moses over Israel, the recipient of Divine promises of guidance and preservation , then the Scribes and Pharisees and certainly could have claimed ensured infallibility, and justified their traditions as Rome does hers.
But while the Scriptures can affirm certain elements of Truth in tradition as in 1Tim. 3:8 (likely written) and in paganism (Acts 17:28) as well, yet it is by inclusion in Scripture that we know these things, versus sanctioning all else in those forms of transmission, and giving Rome carte blanche liberty to assert whatever she will to be the word of God.
Finally Newman gets to the foundational issue, and his fundamental error, that of the veracity of Rome's traditions being based upon the novel premise of her unScriptural infallible magisterium. And to be consistent he even states,
Yet both men, preaching and writings of men of God were discerned and established as being so long before an autocratic church would presume that she was essential for this.
For souls followed prophets who were rejected by leadership, and held writings suvh as Isaiah was being of God, and that John the baptizer "was a prophet indeed," and that Christ was the Son of God, even though they were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses!
Moreover, doubts and scholarly disagreements about certain books of the RC canon
continue down their centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first infallible" canon for RCs - after the death of Luther (and his non-biding judgment on canonical books) in 1546.
Thus while providing certitude is presented such a necessary aspect and a feather in Rome's cap, yet for most of her history she failed to provide it.
That indeed is the presumption, yet if a body of writings were generally held as authoritative, essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation, (note the Scribes and Pharisees never contended about the OT references of the Lord and NT church, and the Lord invoked the tripartite canon thought to be that of those who sat in Moses' seat in Lk. 24:44), then in principle a fuller canon could also be established, both without an infallible mag.
Nor did the formal magisterium of Rome reveal to us the canon of Scripture, as instead it was not a project of it, but was written by individuals, the authorship of at least one of whom we are not sure of, but a body of writings came to commonly generally held and which the magisterium ratify.
But it is by inclusion in Scripture that we know which oral traditions were the word of God, not upon the basis of ensured magisterial infallibility.
Which refers to the only one true church, the corporate body of all believers, as it alone consists of only believers, while Rome, for one, has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes who believe her errors.
It is amazing what RCs seem to extrapolate out of "church living God pillar/support and ground
[hedraiōma: said to be unseen in the Hellenistic Jewish literature, or in the LXX or in secular Greek, or it is said to have meant in the latter fixed, steadfast, or immovable] the truth."
That the church of (though no word for "of appears in the Greek, nor in "of the truth") the living God supports and is fixed on the Truth is substantiated in Scripture, the Lord Himself taking time to go thru Scripture and show the basis for His Messiaship and ministry, yet Caths seem to invoke this texts as if it said that the church was the pillar and basis of the Truth, for RCs seem to imagine that the church was like a kind of "big bang" and did actually begin upon and flow from the foundation of Scripture, to which the NT
abundantly quotes, references and appeals to.
All for now. Glory to God.
