There is a very critical distinction which Catholics must always keep in mind when discussing the topic of Sola Scriptura.
And that is, since they hold to their traditions for doctrine of God without necessity of Scripture to prove them, they need no discussion of Scripture to proof anything.
The distinction is "material" versus "formal" sufficiency of Scripture.
Well, we can be certain that this is going to clear everything up. It's not that Scripture is insufficient. No, not at all. Oh, it's sufficient 'materially', just not 'formally'. Right.
So, we live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, including every jot and tittle of Scripture, materially, not formally.
The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made.
The difference here is between what is written and what is not. I.e. we are either building with bricks and mortar of God's Word, or hay and stubble of men's traditions.
Any building not made with Scripture is a building made with man's hands: Built upon sand, not upon the Rock Christ Jesus.
"Probably the most famous - and most important - example that contradicts formal sufficiency is all the heresy surrounding the Trinity. The [Trinity] can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring.
It is the most infamous and important point of departure from Sola Scriptura, which had been the standard among believers before it.
Here is where the 'leaders' departed from the Scripture, taking the opportunity to make what is not written equal to what is written, by the false accusation that Scripture
can't defend itself against false doctrine of men: insufficiency of Scripture.
Arianism: a created christ, being created and
made a quickening spirit on earth, but not born in the flesh: a kind of paganist demigod, or Olympian god in temporary human form.
One Scripture disproves it:
And the Word was God.
The fact that 'accompanying tradition' was not considered 'necessary' before Arianism, proves that 'accompanying tradition' was not necessary before Aarian. Arianism was the catalyst for leading fools against Sola Scripture, who didn't have enough Scripture to quote John 1:1, and walk away with the faithful, and leave the liars behind.
They then went on from declaring unwritten tradition
necessary to defend written Scripture, to unwritten tradition is
necessary for doctrine of God to accompany Scripture.
That is when the Catholic Religion separated itself from the gospel of salvation through faith of Jesus preached according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15:3-4)
As everyone is aware
This is what I really enjoy from them that have departed from Scripture of truth to vain imaginations of men: they start basing their false conclusions on how 'everyone is aware' of something about Scripture, that most believers were never aware of, until these great and learned professors declare we jolly well are aware of it.
I.e. we need to be made aware of it, so that they can then prove something, that no Scripture of God was ever aware of.
One last important thing to note
Same thing here. Be careful when an unbeliever attempting to mishandle Scripture tells you to take special 'note' of something really, really important. Scripture is the only note needed to hear the Word of God and to sing the song of the Lamb:
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
We have the love of God, because He first loved us by His Word coming in the flesh, and then having His Word written in the flesh for us to read and know of a certainty what is true with God:
For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
All Scripture is certain of sound to them that believe, and traditions of men sound like screeching fingernails on black boards.
Other examples (among many) that contradict the notion of formal sufficiency are especially those texts discussing interpretation of OT prophecy, which the NT shows was very often missed by the Jews who knew the OT quite well.
Now, this statement is circular genius in the flesh:
Because people were not Sola Scriptura in the old covenant, when the Redeemer came
according to the scriptures, they did not believe Him. Therefore, the Scriptures were insufficient to show them the Redeemer had come.
And though He repeatedly quoted Scripture as proof of His coming, they still did not believe Him, because they only knew their traditions, not Scripture.
I.e. them that reject Sola Scriptura don't know what they are talking about in the things of God, and so they blame Scripture for it's inefficiency to show them!
I.e. because they weren't sticking to the blueprint and their house built on sand got washed away, they blame the blueprint as insufficient!
And they do so most scholastically, as we can see for ourselves: a bunch of babbling gibberish couched in pseudo-intellectual 'understanding'.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
The great professors that wrote that stuff are a perfect example of scholastic hay and stubble being presented as learned intelligence with all important 'notes' of understanding. This is what happens when believers in God turn to traditions of men to vainly worship Him:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man.
They knew God by preaching of Scripture and glorified not
His Word only as truth of God, neither were thankful for His Scripture of truth, but became fools, by professing themselves wise in their own traditions, and changed the glory of the incorruptible seed of His Word into the images of corruptible man: traditions of men.
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
On his wonderful blog
A wonderful display of hay, stubble, and grass flowering out as a mysteriously crafted conclusion in a most thoughtful manner: that Scripture is insufficient for faith of God, because them that reject Scripture as insufficient for faith of God, wouldn't know God if he came to them in the flesh. Which He did, and they had Him crucified for rejecting their carefully crafted traditions by only quoting Scripture.
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel?
Well, I marvelled and wondered with great admiration at how bloody ignorant and foolish so-called professors of theology can be, with all the Scripture we wrote to avoid that very thing, and then there's this fawning proselyte that calls it wonderful.
By the way, angel. What's a blog?
